The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1991

  • 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.

  • PMQT – 16 July 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th July 1991. John MacGregor responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Trotter : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 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 hosting the economic summit.

    Mr. Trotter : Is my right hon. Friend aware that many members of the electricians’ trade union on Tyneside play a great part in the economic success of our region? That union is not tied to out-of-date practices. Did my right hon. Friend know that Eric Hammond had recently warned his members of the dire consequences of socialist policy and does he agree that those consequences should be made known to all trade union members?

    Mr. MacGregor : I think that all trade union members are becoming increasingly aware of them. Eric Hammond was talking about the minimum wage policy, which he said would

    “cause industrial unrest, discourage training, harm the economy, put more people on the dole and create a cycle whereby inflation continues to rise.”

    No wonder Opposition Ministers do not want to hear what a trade union leader has said. That is only one in a long line of devastating indictments of Labour’s minimum wage policy. It is beginning to look like Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow : bad news and more bad news every day.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm that the Bank of England and the Treasury have known since the publication of the March 1990 Price Waterhouse report that serious irregularities were operating in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International?

    Mr. MacGregor : The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Bank took action as soon as it was satisfied that it would have evidence–[Hon. Members– : “Answer the question.”] This is a very important point. It took action as soon as it was satisfied that it would have evidence to support the use of its statutory powers. It cannot act on mere suspicion.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that the 1990 Price Waterhouse report said that BCCI was then virtually bankrupt and that hundreds of millions of dollars were being given in unsecured loans? Does he not think that if businesses, individuals and council treasurers had been aware of those conditions, they would then have formed an appropriate opinion on whether to use BCCI? A great deal of hardship and misery might thus have been avoided.

    Mr. MacGregor : The point is that the Bank must act according to the Banking Act 1987. Actions under that Act are subject to appeal and the Bank must therefore have evidence that would stand up in court before it does anything. It cannot act on rumours ; it must have good evidence before acting. In this case, it acted as soon as it had such evidence.

    Mr. Kinnock : We are not talking about the Bank or the Government acting on the basis of rumours. We are talking about both bodies acting on the basis of a serious report from the auditors. The bank has now closed, 200,000 people have lost all or part of their savings and councils of all political descriptions have lost scores of millions of pounds. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time that the Government accepted their share of the blame for these conditions instead of trying to shift the blame to the shoulders of people who simply could not have known what was going on in the same way as the Government could?

    Mr. MacGregor : There is no question of shifting the blame. On the question of the individuals concerned, the right hon. Gentleman knows that under the deposit protection scheme compensation is paid to depositors up to certain levels of deposit. That gives considerable protection to small depositors. It is essential for the Bank to act on evidence that would stand up in court and it did so as soon as it had that evidence.

     

    Q2. Mr. Charles Wardle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Wardle : Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to reconsider the laws governing prison visits and the number of visitors allowed at any one time so that all 28 Labour Members who agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) about non-payment of the community charge may visit him together in gaol?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend asks an intriguing question, but it has a serious point. Since he raised the matter of the 28 Labour Members, it is worth mentioning that three years ago the Leader of the Opposition said that he would wipe out the Militants once and for all. He failed then, which is why we have called upon him to take action ever since. My hon. Friend has made the good point that the influence of Militant in the Labour party is still strong.

    Mr. Rees : Will the Leader of the House bring to the Prime Minister’s notice the serious allegations made in The Guardian today about a “World in Action” programme which reported the comments of a former member of the Joint Intelligence Committee and the fact that serious matters are not brought to the attention of Cabinet Ministers or Parliament? They are serious allegations which should be investigated. Will he ask the Prime Minister, when he has finished today, to institute an inquiry, because such allegations cast doubt on matters that should not be in question?

    Mr. MacGregor : I have not seen that “World in Action” programme, but I shall arrange for it to be looked at and will draw the right hon. Gentleman’s point to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

     

    Q.3 Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Sir Michael Neubert : Will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity to get a message to the Prime Minister at the economic summit to ask him to express regret at the assertion revealed today in The Sun that the election of Mr. Bush to the Presidency was based on a disgraceful campaign of slurs and attacks? Those assertions are apparently made in a letter from the general secretary of the Labour party.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have seen the report and I hope that it is not true. If it is true, it is a disgraceful slur and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would wish to have it withdrawn.

    Ms. Walley : With so many international leaders meeting in London this week, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to tell the House why his Government have no policy on British shipping? Now that the House has been denied the opportunity to debate and vote on this matter, will he tell us why he is not giving the support to British shipping that other countries enjoy?

    Mr. MacGregor : There already is support for British shipping, but it was made clear in one of the debates last night that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was considering proposals put forward during that debate.

     

    Q4. Mr. Knowles : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Knowles : Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when he sees the Prime Minister–

    Mr. Tony Banks : Will he recognise him?

    Mr. Knowles : During the Group of Seven conference and discussions with President Gorbachev, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister make it clear that the Baltic states have not been forgotten, that none of the G7 countries has ever accepted the Soviet conquest of those three states and that that must be a starting point for any discussions about aid and investment?

    Mr. MacGregor : I certainly take note of my hon. Friend’s point.

    Dr. Kim Howells : Is the Leader of the House aware that at this morning’s annual general meeting of British Airways, Lord King announced that, because of the appalling incompetence of the Secretary of State for Transport in his dealings with American airlines, British Airways is considering selling off all but its core operations, including an aero overhaul plant in my constituency which employs 1,000 men and women? What is he going to do to prevent such a calamity for south Wales?

    Mr. MacGregor : I certainly reject the allegation about my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The whole House knows of the way in which he has conducted these matters.

     

    Q5. Mr. William Powell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Powell : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to re-read the excellent speech made a few days ago by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the future of our education system and will he pay special attention to the passage which deals with the future of city technology colleges? Can we expect early action by the Government to ensure a great increase in the number of CTCs?

    Mr. MacGregor : I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I thought that it was an admirable speech which showed the tremendous progress that has been made under our education policies. My hon. Friend makes it clear that one programme–only one among many–is that for city technology colleges. There are now 13 in operation or about to be in operation and two more in the pipeline. They are undoubtedly making a big impact in inner-city areas by extending technology and involving industry and commerce. My right hon. Friend mentioned two other ways in which the programme can be carried forward–allowing local education authorities to invest in CTCs and allowing grant-maintained CTCs. It is worth pursuing both ideas and I am sure that we shall do so as soon as legislative time permits.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Building Societies

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister, if Ministers, at the time of the 1985 Budget, intended to lay regulations to create liability for tax relating to a year for which building societies composite rate tax liability had been fully discharged; what estimate of the money involved was available to Ministers at the time; and what, and when, an estimate was first made available to Parliament.

    The Prime Minister : The 1985 Budget day press release announced that there would be transitional provisions to deal with the changeover for building societies from an annual to a quarterly accounting system in line with that for the banks.

    The announcement followed confidential discussions with building society representatives during which Ministers made it clear that the provisions would cover payments between the end of societies’ accounting periods in 1985-86 and 5 April 1986 that would otherwise fall out of account.

    No estimate was made at the time of tax on interest accruing between the end of societies’ accounting periods ending in 1985-86 and paid before the end of that tax year. No estimate covering all societies has subsequently been made available to Parliament. For societies other than the Woolwich Equitable, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by the Economic Secretary on 21 June at column 341.

     

    Additionality

    Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements exist for co-ordination between the Treasury, the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office, on the question of additionality in respect of RECHAR funding from the European Community; and which Minister has the lead responsibility for policy regarding additionality.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has lead responsibility for all matters concerning the European Community structural funds.

     

    Former Prime Ministers

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 27 March, Official Report, column 428, whether income arising from a former Prime Minister’s special position in public life was taken into account in assessing their eligibility for the allowance to former Prime Ministers for the additional costs which they are liable to incur from their special position in public life.

    The Prime Minister : No. The full amount of the allowance is available to all former Prime Ministers.

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 27 March, Official Report, column 428, what is the former Prime Ministers’ total annual allowance; whether it includes travel expenses (a) within the United Kingdom and (b) abroad; and if he will make a statement on the restrictions on the use of money under the scheme.

    The Prime Minister : The maximum amount of the allowance available to former Prime Ministers during 1991-92 is £28,986 plus £2,899 for secretaries’ pension contributions. Former Prime Ministers may draw on the allowance to offset the secretarial and other office expenses they incur because of their special position in public life, but not the cost of their travel either in the United Kingdom or abroad.

     

    Mar Lodge

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up an interdepartmental working group to consider the future of Mar lodge.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already established the Cairngorms working party to present options for the integrated management of the Cairngorms as a whole. Mar lodge estate is central to the area under consideration. The relevant Government Departments and agencies are represented on, or act as technical assessors to, the working party.

    I understand, moreover, that the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland are giving consideration to the future management of the natural heritage interest on the estate.

     

    Cairns Group

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the communique issued following the meeting of Cairns group of ministers in Manaus, Brazil, on 9 July; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The communique rightly points to the need to bring the Uruguay round of trade negotiations to an early conclusion, and the crucial importance of agreement on agriculture in order to do so. As the communique says, the need now is to move from technical discussions to decisions on the framework within which agricultural support and protection are to be reduced. I hope that the London economic summit this week will give a strong push to the Uruguay round, and that Heads of Government will remain personally involved, with the aim of reaching a successful conclusion this year.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Brian Mulroney – 14 July 1991

    Below is the text of a joint doorstep interview with John Major and the Canadian Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney. The doorstep interview was held in London on Sunday 14th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good Morning. We have had the opportunity this morning to range over a large number of bilateral and international matters of mutual interest. On the bilateral front I was able to thank the Prime Minister personally for the tremendous help and assistance he was throughout the period of the Gulf war, there was a very close consultation throughout that period and one that was very much appreciated. The fact that the Canadian Field Hospital, so badly needed, was placed under British command was particularly welcome.

    We have also had a series of discussions over recent months, the Prime Minister has been kind enough to contact me from various parts of the world from time to time to discuss matters in the lead-up to this summit. He has of course the advantage of having chaired one of these summits on a previous occasion. So we had a series of bilateral matters to discuss.

    We also took the opportunity this morning of running through the agenda for the G7 and the subsequent meeting thereafter with President Gorbachev as well as matters of interest to us both as members of the Commonwealth. So we found it a most useful and productive preliminary meeting before the summit begins.

    MR MULRONEY:

    We had an excellent meeting this morning, as the Prime Minister has indicated, reviewing both bilateral matters and questions in regard to the run-up to the summit. Most recently I have had the occasion to spend some time with Prime Minister Kaifu and Chancellor Kohl and last Tuesday night a meeting with President Bush. And so it gave us an opportunity in respect of the agenda and Mr Gorbachev’s visit to compare notes and to get ready for what I believe will be four very challenging and important days of summitry.

    I thanked the Prime Minister for his contribution, his very generous contribution to the remarkably profitable and mutually beneficial bilateral relationship we have as evidenced by the very sensitive degree of cooperation and mutual understanding during the war.
    And so we discussed the Commonwealth, we had to cancel a meeting that was scheduled here for June with the Commonwealth because of preoccupations we both had elsewhere, but we did have a chance to review some Commonwealth matters today before we meet again on that subject in Africa in October.

    [More remarks in French but not interpreted].

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you think you can do business with the Soviet President?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we will have to discuss with President Gorbachev what he has to say when he gets here, there will be ample opportunity when President Gorbachev gets here for him to set out before the G7 Heads of State and Government what his proposals and plans are and then we will discuss it. But I think it would be courteous to hear what President Gorbachev has to say before I respond to that question.

    QUESTION:

    Are you happy with the reform package?

    MR MULRONEY:

    We are still analysing the package, it is a very complicated one, and we will have to see when the seven get together. Obviously President Gorbachev is approaching this in what appears to be a quite constructive manner, whether the G7 will be able to respond to this I somehow doubt it. I do not believe that you will see either miracles or blank cheques from the G7 summit. I hope that what will take place will be a serious response to a serious proposal under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Major and then there be a meeting with the Chairman of the Summit and President Gorbachev which I hope will give rise to a process whereby the response could be geared to the implementation of a programme for important structural reform.

    But you are quite aware that for example some of the people around the table, not necessarily either of us, but some people round the table will raise questions like: Well if your economy is in such great difficulty, as it is, why will you persist in spending such vast amounts of money in refurbishing your military at a time when cash would seem to be scarce and ought to be placed into consumer goods and the rebuilding of your economy?

    So I think this is the kind of debate that probably will take place with Mr Gorbachev in the room and if his answers are appropriate. if his answers are persuasive, he may find the general approach constructive. If his answers are not I would not want to presume on the outcome.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The last point is the key, we need to know what President Gorbachev has to say.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    Both your national economies are in recession, do you think there is any chance that there will be a significant package emerging possibly from this summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we are going to discuss in this summit is not the individual economies of the United Kingdom and Canada and in both cases of course the principal problem that we have faced over some time has been inflation and in both cases that is beginning to abate and interest rates are beginning to fall so both economies are getting themselves into a position where there will be fresh growth. But I think there will be very considerable concern to make sure as we come out of the slow-down in world trade generally, a recession in some countries, a near recession in others, that we come out of it in a way that does not re-engender inflation, I think we will be very concerned to avoid that.

    MR MULRONEY:

    I would second that and just add one comment. We have had a tough recession in Canada but we seem to be out of it now and interest rates have come down by some 500 basis points over the last year, all of the signals would appear to be quite promising, and so we are hopeful that the policies to which Prime Minister Major referred coming out of this summit will allow for quite strong growth in Canada but in a non-inflationary climate. That is what I think we are all looking for.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Mulroney, is there a chance that trade disputes will be used as a bargaining chip to unify the group over aid to the Soviet Union?

    MR MULRONEY:

    Not a chance.

    QUESTION:

    You have had a chance to look at the economic package as proposed by Mr Gorbachev, it seems that initially you have given it a somewhat dusty response, you are not terribly impressed with it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have examined it overnight, we have not had a chance to do an analysis in detail, it is clearly built on the Pavlov plan. What one needs to do is to determine to what extent it can be carried out, what the impact would be of it being carried out, whether it is a plan that can be carried out by the Soviet Union at the centre or whether it actually needs the active cooperation of the Republics, to what extent it would get the active cooperation of the Republics, what it actually means in terms of draconian measures within the Soviet economy.

    All those are matters that actually deserve some form of detailed study before we pronounce upon it. That study is being undertaken at the moment and will be concluded before we have the meeting with President Gorbachev later on this week. So we will not only wish to study it in detail, as we are doing, and how it would be implemented in detail, we will also wish to hear what President Gorbachev has to say about it. For there are two points to be considered: one is that it is perfectly desirable and satisfactory to set out an economic reform programme, but it only actually has a practical application if the economic reform programme is actually carried into operation and is successful and there are a vast range of matters to consider about that and to ask President Gorbachev about.

    So that is why I genuinely think that we need to have this dialogue with President Gorbachev before we can reach conclusions upon it. It is very complex, as the Prime Minister said a moment or so ago, very complex indeed, we will want to analyse it, consider it, discuss it, listen to President Gorbachev and then we will be in a better position to draw conclusions about it.

    MR MULRONEY:

    Exactly what John has said – what does privatisation really mean to him? What does price liberalisation mean? What does currency stabilisation mean to him and how does he see technical assistance? There are definitions that I think are quite important and probably quite different but the only way we are going to find out is the 8 of us around the table, 7 with him. And so I think that will be how the Prime Minister has been leading us all if the truth be known, in a very demanding build-up to this, he has been in bilateral communication with all of us frequently and I think very effectively and so Prime Minister Major has ensured that all of us come to this summit well acquainted with the difficulties and the challenges and the pitfalls that we are going to confront and ready to I think come together, I hope, with a common response to that.

    QUESTION:

    [In French and not interpreted]

    MR MULRONEY:

    [In French and not interpreted]

    QUESTION:

    Is it too early to call it the G8?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is too early.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EC Environment Policies

    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement of his policy on (a) EC proposals to ban the sale of fish contaminated with pesticides and (b) plans for the EC’s own environmental protection agency.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom has consistently supported the concept of the European Environment Agency (EEA) and greatly regrets that the delay in deciding its location is holding up its establishment. We see the provision of objective, reliable and comparable environmental information at the European level, which is the aim of the EEA, as the only sound basis for formulating environmental policies. As to the first part of the question I am not aware of any EC proposals on this subject.

     

    Marine Pollution

    Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of last year’s conference of North sea states; what is his policy on (a) a ban on dumping of nuclear waste at sea and (b) a declaration to reduce output of pollutants blamed for blooms of toxic marine algae.

    The Prime Minister : We made it clear at last year’s North sea conference that we have no plans for disposing of radioactive waste from ships or seabed artificial structures into or beneath the seabed. We have always followed the recommendations of the competent international organisations on the dumping of waste and agree that this disposal option is not suitable for the North sea. Nevertheless we have not completely ruled out sea disposal for large items such as boilers from decommissioned power stations and are keeping under review whether this disposal option may be required at some further date.

    Algal bloom, including toxic marine algae, occurs naturally in the marine environment, but, in slow-moving shallow water areas with a high proportion of freshwater from rivers, nutrients from agriculture and sewage discharges can be a determining factor. In the North sea these conditions occur along the eastern coastal seaboard particularly in the Wadden sea and Skaggerak. Given the circulation pattern of the North sea, discharges of nutrients from the United Kingdom do not contribute to this problem.

     

    Arms Control

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives he plans to take to advance the aims of avoiding world over-armament as agreed in annex VII of the Presidency conclusions of the European Council meeting at Luxembourg on 28-29 June.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 11 July 1991] : We are actively pursuing a number of initiatives to encourage greater responsibility and transparency in the international transfer of conventional weapons, and to combat proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The five leading arms exporters met in Paris on 8-9 July and agreed to develop machinery for continuing consultations on arms transfers. A further meeting will be held in London.

    The Paris meeting also endorsed our initiative to establish a United Nations register of arms transfers. The initiative has attracted wide support. The European Council on 28-29 June announced that the Twelve will present a resolution to set up such a register at the next United Nations General Assembly.

    These issues are on the agenda of next week’s London economic summit.

     

    Eastern Europe

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the arrangements in place for the assistance by the United Kingdom of environmental clean-up, environmental protection and industrial development for countries of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 11 July 1991] : The know-how fund is the main focus of the United Kingdom’s environmental and industrial assistance to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. On 21 June we announced an environmental programme for eastern Europe worth £5 million over three years. Multilaterally we co-ordinate our efforts through the G24 with participation by all OECD countries and relevant international organisations. There are separate G24 sub-groups which address environmental issues and investment and economic/industrial restructuring. In addition to EC’s Poland and Hungary aid for economic reconstruction (PHARE) programme has so far made available some £152 million for economic/industrial restructuring and £71 million in environmental help.

     

    G7 Economic Summit

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what environmental initiatives (a) he intends to raise and (b) Her Majesty’s Government have been informed that other heads of state and Governments intend to raise at the forthcoming G7 economic summit in London.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 11 July 1991] : The summit is an informal meeting between Heads of Government. I hope that the summit will give impetus to the run-up to the UN conference on environment and development, in particular on climate change, the protection of biological diversity and the conservation of forests.

    Mrs. Currie : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with representatives of international businesses concerning the G7 summit; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 11 July 1991] : I met representatives of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) on 2 July to exchange views on the issues likely to arise at the London economic summit. The ICC endorsed the importance which the Government attach to low inflation as a necessary condition for sustained growth in the world economy and shared the Government’s wish to secure early progress in the Uruguay round of GATT talks. We also discussed the ICC’s ideas on technical assistance to the Soviet Union and the countries of central and eastern Europe.

  • Mr Major’s Briefing with the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary – 11 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record press briefing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, and the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd. The briefing was given in London on 11th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Economic Summit this year, as you know, will be held in London next week between 15-17 July. The meeting will be held in Lancaster House, the same venue for the last Economic Summit held in the UK in 1984, seven years ago.

    On 17 July, when the Summit itself is over, I have invited President Gorbachev for a full afternoon of talks followed by a less formal dinner. This will be the first time that any Soviet President has taken part in such a meeting and I believe it will mark a further development both in relations between the Summit partners and the Soviet Union and also I hope in the economic and political development of the Soviet Union itself.

    These summits, as we have seen over recent years, by tradition range widely. Although they sometimes take decisions, their essential character is informal. The theme we have this year for the summit is building world partnership and strengthening the international order and our aim is to reinforce, to encourage the spread of values which all of those round the summit table share – democracy, sound economic management, respect for human rights, good government and the rule of law. And that over-arching theme runs through the wide range of both political and economic matters that we will discuss during the course of next week. Our overall aim at the summit is to stimulate multilateral economic cooperation and help to extend successful economic principles throughout the world.

    On the political side we will certainly discuss Yugoslavia, much of that discussion of course will depend on what state the present crisis has reached by early next week; the Middle East will certainly feature in our discussions; we will cover developments in Iraq, including the refugee problem and the Arab/Israel peace process; on South Africa we will be covering the need to ensure the economic recovery which will be necessary for the political reforms to succeed in both the medium and in the long term.

    I am sure also that the summit will consider giving particular emphasis to controlling sales of conventional arms. We simply cannot allow a country like Iraq ever again to build up a huge arsenal of deadly weapons, unchecked and in some cases unknown. So we will need to agree a series of principles governing such sales.

    Our focus will also be on ideas for strengthening the international order so that small states can feel safe from aggression from their larger neighbours and in particular we will be advancing a number of ideas for strengthening the role of the United Nations.

    On the economic side I hope the summit will be able to range over a number of matters. It will I hope give strong endorsement to the firm counter-inflation policies which produce good growth and low inflation in the 1980s. I certainly hope it will give a very strong push indeed to the Uruguay round of the GATT to ensure a successful conclusion this year. It will I trust give strong political backing to the reforms in Eastern Europe and help to improve access for their exports to Western markets. I hope it will take forward further the debt reduction for the poorest countries on the lines of the Trinidad Terms initiative I launched when I was Chancellor. And I hope it will also make a firm commitment to the successful outcome for the crucial UN Conference on Environment and Development that will be held in Brazil next June and I think that is particularly important insofar as climate change is concerned.

    At the end of the summit proper I am of course looking forward to the visit of President Gorbachev. The summit partners’ meeting with him will be a development of the process that was initiated at the Paris Summit in 1989 when he wrote a letter to the 7 Heads of Government present, that was carried forward at Houston with a study subsequently of the Soviet Union. The United Kingdom, and I am sure all our summit partners, firmly intend that this meeting should mark the beginning of a new process of cooperation and dialogue between our governments, our countries and the Soviet Union.

    The summit will not consider large-scale financial assistance but I do expect summit Heads of Government will want to explore with President Gorbachev his ideas for the economic and political reform of the Soviet Union, his ideas to mobilise the immense resources of the Soviet Union, both natural and human, I think that will be an important part of our discussions. We will also consider with President Gorbachev practical ways in which we can best cooperate, drawing on all relevant sources of bilateral and multilateral skills to support reform and to integrate the Soviet Union increasingly into the world economy.

    It looks therefore as though it is going to be a fairly crowded and I hope a worthwhile and productive week. We have endeavoured to make a particular effort to ensure that all of you who will have a difficult job to do over the next few days have the best facilities available at the Queen Elizabeth Press Centre. I have no doubt that you are going to be busy, I hope in addition to being busy that you enjoy the occasion and I hope it turns out to be a successful, as I am sure it will be, and fascinating few days.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Prime Minister, I wonder if you could expand just a little on what you meant by the practical ways in which you can cooperate with Mr Gorbachev, you will obviously discuss with him the reforms but he would obviously like to take something concrete away, it is clear obviously that he cannot now expect to take a large suitcase full of cash but could he for example expect cash in the form of access to a know-how fund or greater access to a know-how fund, something of that sort?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We do not have a fixed agenda for what we are going to offer President Gorbachev and discuss with him when he comes, it is a genuine dialogue, so there is not a fixed agenda and a clear agreement of what actually will be the outcome of the discussion. There is in fact already a know-how fund available to Eastern Europe and partly to the Soviet Union. The sort of things I think we will discuss are new processes of cooperation to support economic reform, advice and assistance on matters like property rights, privatisation, how to expand and develop businesses.

    I think there will be a widespread feeling that there ought to be technical assistance and I draw the distinction between technical assistance and large sums of money. I think it is probable that we will discuss whether the Soviet Union could be associated in some way with international financial institutions, including perhaps the IMF, and we will need to establish a framework to follow-up after the summit the matters that are discussed at the summit. I would not imagine it would be a brief, single discussion that would both begin and terminate on Thursday of next week, I think there would be a framework of some sort to follow it up later.

    QUESTION (Peter Day, BBC):

    What can the summit do for the ordinary British person perhaps worried about unemployment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the concern that people have about unemployment both in this country and in many countries abroad is clearly related to what is going to happen to the world economy generally. None of us is isolated, certainly we are not in the United Kingdom, so I think we will be looking to see what we can determine in terms of economic management to create a low inflation, inflation-free if possible, sustainable growth for the world economy generally. That I think is the best and most productive way we can approach the problems of unemployment both in this country and in many other countries where the unemployment problem is acute,

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    In view of the speech you made earlier this week expressing strong remarks about the dangers to the environment, particularly the rain forests, what practical steps do you hope to achieve on the environment at the summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think the summit of itself is going to make vast new proposals insofar as the environment is concerned. I would be very surprised if we did not do a further analysis of Brazilian prospects on safeguarding the Brazilian rainforests, that I suspect is a specific matter that we will discuss. One thing I would hope that would come out of our conference next week is a commitment that the G7 Heads of Government should attend in person the Environment and Development Conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and if that does happen I think it will be probably the first time ever that the Heads of Government from all round the world, not just in groups like the G7 or the Permanent Five or the G24, would have actually gathered together for a single conference to discuss a single particular problem. But I hope that is something that we will encourage at the summit next week so that we may have the most successful development conference we possibly can in Brazil next year.

    QUESTION (Jerry Lewis, Israel Radio):

    You have mentioned great emphasis on trying to restrict the sale of arms, how does that tie in with the proposal evidently made yesterday at the EC by Mr Hogg to lift the ban on arms sales to Syria and what proposals do you have specifically to advance the peace process on the Arab/Israel front?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we are seeking to do in terms of arms control, each country has a right to arms for defensive purposes, I think no-one would dispute that, the concern that we have particularly in the United Kingdom is where the growth of armaments in a particular country far exceeds what is necessary for defensive purposes and becomes an arsenal satisfactory for offensive purposes.

    What we are seeking to do through the United Nations is to obtain more transparency so that people are aware of the scale of armaments that countries are building up and that is of course what underpins our particular desire for a transparent register of arms sales, I think that is a practical proposition that will work, most of the arms sales come from the Permanent Five, if the Permanent Five will actually agree to such transparency then we will be able to monitor to a far greater extent than ever before what armaments are actually in the hands of regional governments and observe when a particular regional government becomes so powerful in terms of armaments that it may have an offensive intention.

    I have nothing to add about Syria to what Mr Hogg said yesterday.

    ADAM BOULTON (SKY NEWS):

    Prime Minister, given the extent of the preparatory bilateral meetings which have been taking place in which you have not been playing a part in the last week or so, are you confident you won’t be ambushed with any surprises? Following up on that, what would you say to the suggestion that G7 is in fact a fiction and that really G3 – Japan, America and Germany – call all the shots?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would not agree with that both in terms of the discussions I have had previously in G7 fora as a finance minister and also briefly as a foreign affairs minister as well; I certainly would not agree that that is the case and I think there is a lot of practical evidence to indicate that it is not.

    Insofar as ambush is concerned, I don’t think there has been a single week since I became Prime Minister last November when someone has not suggested somewhere that I was going to be ambushed by someone on some particular topic. Thus far, I have no arrows sticking out of me and I certainly don’t expect any next week.

    ELEANOR GOODMAN (CHANNEL 4 NEWS):

    You talked about firm counter-inflationary policies. Can you hope that this Summit will in any way accelerate the reduction in interest rates or are the members of G7 too divided over this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure that Heads of Government is the right place necessary to consider the more detailed matter that you raise of coordination of interest rates; that is a matter for the finance ministers and the finance ministers meet in G7 fora as well so that would be a matter for them. I don’t imagine that is going to be a particular subject for discussion this week. The general framework of economic management, the objectives of economic management, the need to bear down continually on inflation and produce sustainable growth is a legitimate matter for Heads of Government to discuss and we will do so. The details of coordination under Louvre, under Plaza or whatever other agreement one may have in mind, I think is more appropriate a matter for the finance ministers themselves to discuss.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    We had a discussion in G7 just a few weeks ago. I would imagine we will be talking more generally about savings and investment and the position of fiscal deficits and emphasising that the reduction of fiscal deficits is extremely important and from a long-term point of view of achieving lower interest rates it is concentration on a strong fiscal position – that is what I imagine we will discuss.

    ROBIN OAKLEY (THE TIMES):

    Prime Minister, the political achievements since the Gulf War don’t seem to have lived up to the military achievements. Do you hope that this Summit can do anything in the next week to help along the Middle East peace process?

    A second, practical question: we often get grand declarations about drugs or terrorism and such subjects at these Summits but there never seems to be much follow-up afterwards. Are you going to do anything about the practical follow-up process between this Summit and the next one?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I mentioned insofar as the latter point is concerned, particularly a framework for following up the discussions with President Gorbachev and I certainly would not expect that this conference should produce declarations that are not then going to be subject to a detailed follow-up – I would not expect that to happen. If we indicate areas of interest and policy, then we would wish to see how they were going to be followed up in order that we could monitor what was to be done.

    Insofar as the peace process in the Middle East is concerned, I don’t think you should expect anything dramatic out of this Summit. This has been a problem that has been with us for a long time; it is continuing. I think we will wish to take stock of the present position and ensure that the drift of policy is in the right direction but I would not expect any dramatic new initiatives over the period of the next week.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    The initiative which the United States Administration launched earlier this year after the end of the Gulf War on the Arab-Israel problem is of course still in action and I think everybody around the G7 table supports it and will continue to do so. It has always seemed to us very important that the Americans should put all the energy and enthusiasm they can into bringing the parties together. They have made some progress but not yet sufficient for a conference to be held. I am sure that backing will continue.

    PETER NORMAN:

    Prime Minister, you said you wanted to give a very strong push indeed to the GATT talks and also said you hoped that the Summit would come out and press for a favourable conclusion by the end of this year. The Houston Summit a year ago said exactly the same thing after much wrangling and the GATT talks nearly collapsed in December, so what has changed since then? Why are you confident that things can be different this year and isn’t the G7 credibility getting rather tattered on this issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I regard the successful outcome of the Uruguay Round as one of the most important things on the international scene at the moment. The impact of a Uruguay Round that failed I think would be very serious in the temptation that it would lead people towards all sorts of artificial trade barriers, protectionism and a trade war so I think it is extremely important that the Uruguay Round is a success. I think we not only need to signal the need for success, including progress on agriculture at the earliest possible date, on matters to do with services and also market access but I think the particular point that I would wish to emphasise is that we need a specific commitment of the Heads of Government if necessary to make sure that there is a sufficient degree of political clout to make sure that the Uruguay Round does proceed. No-one doubts the difficulties of getting a successful outcome to the Uruguay Round, equally I think no-one can possibly push aside the dangers of not having such an outcome.

    QUESTION (JAPANESE NEWSPAPER):

    Concerning aid to the Soviet Union, it is reported that Japan is reluctant to offer a large amount of money because of the problem of the Northern Islands. Are you going to suggest to the Japanese Government or persuade the Japanese Government to take a more positive attitude or to become our biggest contributor?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the relationship between the Japanese Government and the Soviet Union over the Northern Islands is one that has been there for a long time; it has been the subject of discussion and I can’t answer for how the Japanese Government will deal with that matter in our general discussions but the question of large-scale aid, as I indicated earlier, is not likely to come up at this particular Summit. I indicated the areas where I thought there would be discussion with the Soviet Union and what would happen but I do not expect it to embrace large-scale financial aid, perhaps the balance of payments or even for some other purpose so I don’t think the particular push you have in mind is one that is likely to feature on our agenda at all.

    KEITH ROCKWELL (JOURNAL OF COMMERCE):

    Prime Minister, Mr. Yevenski and Mr. Allison have been trundling their plan around Europe in the past couple of weeks. I wonder if you could give us your impressions of that plan and what areas of it may need to be firmed-up before it would meet with your approval?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We don’t yet know what President Gorbachev is going to say to us when he comes and I don’t know whether it will be any one of the variety of plans that have been circulated or whether it will be a combination or whether it will be something wholly separate. I think I am going to concentrate on what President Gorbachev actually says to us and not the plans that have been in circulation for some time, so I would prefer to say nothing until I hear what the President has to say.

    HELEN PIK:

    Do you have any indication in advance if Mr. Gorbachev will be content with being told that he can expect no money at this Summit? Are you willing to make any commitment of future financial assistance after the review which you are going to set up in [Indistinct] and do you think that you can give Mr. Gorbachev enough to strengthen him domestically?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr. Gorbachev knows the remit for the discussions this week – that has of course been a matter of discussion with him. What he is going to say and what plans and ideas and what he is going to tell us about economic reform in the Soviet Union we don’t know but he knows the broad parameters for discussion for this week so I see no difficulties in that at all.

    We are very concerned to ensure that not only do the Soviet Union pass the legislation for economic reform but they actually implement the legislation so that economic reform itself can actually come about. That is the key point and we will be very interested to hear what President Gorbachev has to say about that. How matters develop subsequently will of course depend upon how the economic reform programme proceeds.

    QUESTION (POLISH PRESS AGENCY):

    Central European countries’ balance of trade suffers with the collapse of trade with the Soviet Union which simply does not have money to pay for sufficient imported goods. There were some ideas circulating to help the Soviet Union and those Central European countries by supporting mutual trade. Do you agree with this concept?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are several things floating around in Central and Eastern Europe, certainly what we have in the United Kingdom and call the Know-How Fund and there are similar arrangements with other countries that have a slightly different remit but they all have the same underlying objective and that is to promote long-term private investment in Eastern Europe and promote the movement towards a market economy so that the Eastern European nations are manufacturing and producing goods that are readily saleable to the West. The counterpoint for that is to make sure that we provide them with the market access to the West without which of course it would be a pretty futile gesture simply providing them with the know-how in order to increase their manufacturing and private sector capacity. I think those are the matters that are likely to be under discussion over the next few days.

    QUESTION (LE MONDE):

    Prime Minister, I understand that this activity, Economic Summits, were initiated by Monsieur [Indistinct] quite a long time ago. At that time it was supposed to be totally informal and based on economics. For quite a time it seems to be more political and less and less informal and more and more formal. Do you believe there is still space for real economic activity or negotiation in those meetings and what do you think of Mr. Gorbachev’s invitation to this Summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think they are still informal occasions; they are conducted informally; there isn’t a rigidity about the matters that are raised – they are discussed beforehand and if any of the G7 want a particular matter on the agenda it tends to be there. Other matters will be raised no doubt that are not on the agenda, so they retain their informal aspect. I think the value in them is not only in the informality of the way a wide number of things are addressed but also as an increasing acknowledgement of the inter-independence that each of the countries even up to and including the largest and most powerful of them have with the economies of the other countries there, so that interdependence, that knowledge of what is actually in the minds of the people running the economies in those countries and the foreign affairs in terms of the foreign affairs ministers in those countries is very valuable. That would be destroyed I think if it were too rigid a structure, which is why although you may be correct in saying they are less informal than they were many years – I can’t vouch for that, I wasn’t there – I can promise you that this week will certainly be informal.

    WILL HUTTON:

    [Indistinct] for the GATT talks, will that be confirmed or not? Endorsing the Trinidad terms: does that mean two-thirds debt write-off for the poorest countries?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first question, we will have to wait and see – I hope so. So far as the Trinidad terms are concerned, I am extremely keen to see progress on the Trinidad terms. It is a difficult package, it is a complex package. The theory of it is simple – writing off their large sums of debts; the technical application of that theory is extremely difficult and has different ramifications in each of the G7 countries. I think we will make progress on the Trinidad terms; how far that progress will get, I am afraid I don’t yet know and that perhaps illustrates the point I made a few moments ago that there is an informality in these meetings and there is a great deal to be determined as a result of the discussions that take place at them.

    COLIN BROWN (THE INDEPENDENT):

    The Soviet Union appears to be increasing spending on defence in spite of the various arms negotiations they are involved in. Although you are not going to directly discuss the subject of financial aid, do you think in principle the two ought to be linked and that the Soviet Union ought not to get financial aid until it starts cutting expenditure on defence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are naturally concerned about two things related to defence: firstly, the degree of expenditure the Soviet Union continues to put into its defence structure – that is a matter of concern and may well be discussed; secondly, to ensure that the Soviet Union actually implements the agreements that they have previously entered into on disbandment of defence. It is still a matter of some concern to us, the transfer of tanks from the army to the navy which leaves the Soviet navy with rather more tanks than many Western armies, so those are the sort of things that will be discussed and of course we will have to take those into account in considering what assistance we can offer the Soviet Union in the short- and the long-term on their economic reform programme.

    WILLIAM KEEGAN (THE OBSERVER):

    Prime Minister, if there is to be no new Marshall Plan on this occasion, is there going to be a Major Plan?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There certainly is not going to be a Marshall Plan, William. There will certainly be a discussion but I certainly would not give it any such name!

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Official Visits

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister, when he will next pay an official visit to south London.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and very much hope to include south London among them.

     

    Share Shops

    Mr. French : To ask the Prime Minister which Departments have participated in the Government’s review of high street share shops as a distribution method for privatisation issues and other equities.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering, in consultation with interested colleagues, proposals from the private sector for a retail share distribution network.

     

    China (Visit)

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he intends to raise the matters of global warming and climate change, and ozone layer depletion, when he meets members of the Chinese Government during his forthcoming visit to China.

    The Prime Minister : Plans for my visit to China are still at an early stage of preparation. The Government are in regular contact with the Chinese authorities to discuss climate change, ozone layer depletion and other international environmental issues.

     

    Environmental Conferences

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government were represented at the Ecoasia ’91 conference held in Japan in early July.

    The Prime Minister : No.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the new policy proposals on the environment he made to the conference on global problems and solutions on 8 July.

    The Prime Minister : Copies of my speech are available in the Library.

     

    World Conservation Monitoring Centre

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what use is made by departments of Her Majesty’s Government of the world conservation monitoring centre in Cambridge ; and what funds are provided by Her Majesty’s Government to support the centre.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to page 52 of the Environment White Paper (Cm. 1200), where attention is drawn to the Government’s five-point plan for the conservation of biological diversity in developing countries. The first of the five points relates to a major study on the status of the world’s biodiversity which is being carried out for the Overseas Development Administration by the world conservation monitoring centre. The centre is an independent charity established by leading agencies in the conservation movement including the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the United Nations environment programme (UNEP), both of which are supported financially by Her Majesty’s Government.

     

    United Nations Bodies

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what annual contributions have been made by the United Kingdom since 1979 to the man and biosphere interdisciplinary sciences and natural resource programme of the United Nations Education and Science Organisation ; and what benefits have accrued to the United Kingdom from the contributions made.

    The Prime Minister : Until the United Kingdom withdrew from the United Nations Education and Science Organisation (UNESCO), in December 1985 no separate contribution was made from aid funds to the man and biosphere (MAB) programme. An assessed contribution was made annually to the UNESCO programme of which MAB is an integral part. Since our withdrawal from UNESCO research related to the MAB has been maintained through a grant from the Overseas Development Administration to the National Environment Research Council (NERC). The sums given over the past five years are as follows :

    Year |£

    ————————

    1986-87 |89,185

    1987-88 |98,600

    1988-89 |98,700

    1989-90 |100,000

    1990-91 |100,000

    Work on the MAB within NERC is undertaken by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. The institute benefits from these contributions by being able to maintain its research capacity in areas overseas which might not qualify for funding from its other sources. This strengthens the United Kingdom institutional capacity to maintain a broad experience in environmental disciplines and increases our knowledge of the environmental problems affecting other countries, whose perspectives and priorities in addressing environmental issues may differ from those of the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to propose to the United Nations that a new agency for the promotion and establishment of new and renewable energy sources be set up under the auspices of the United Nations.

    The Prime Minister : The United Nations already has a committee on new and renewable sources of energy, which has achieved little of value. The question of future United Nations institutions in this area is likely to form part of the subject matter of the United Nations conference on environment and development to take place in Rio de Janeiro next year.

     

    Carbon Dioxide Emissions

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects Her Majesty’s Government to publish the results of its monitoring of the implementation of carbon dioxide emission reduction policies ; and if he will indicate the cost to date of such monitoring.

    The Prime Minister : United Kingdom carbon dioxide emission figures are published annually in the Department of the Environment’s “Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics”. The first set of measures to curb emissions was published last September in the Environment White Paper (Cm 1200). We will publish a report in the autumn on progress towards our carbon dioxide target.

    It is not possible to estimate separately the cost of monitoring progress on carbon dioxide as monitoring forms part of a wider programme of work on the United Kingdom’s response to the threat of climate change, involving a number of departments.

     

    Our Common Future

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty’s Government intend to publish their review of progress in the implementation of the action points set out in the White Paper “Our Common Future” and what has been the total cost to date of the actions taken to implement the proposals and commitments.

    The Prime Minister : The first full progress report on the Environment White Paper (Cm 1200) will be published later this year. The essence of the White Paper commitments is the integration of environmental concerns throughout Government policies. The cost of implementation is therefore reflected across a wide range of spending priorities and an all- inclusive figure for the costs of the action taken to date is not readily available. Among the more substantial expenditure committed is :

    Water investment by the water companies of £28 billion from 1990 to 2000 ;

    An extra £23.1 million grant-in-aid in 1991-92 for the National Rivers Authority ;

    £30.2 million representing a rise of 35 per cent. grant-in-aid to the Countryside Commission for 1991-92 ;

    Increase of £4 million for research on renewable energy ; An extra £133 million credit approval for local authorities over the next three years to improve recycling and waste disposal.

     

    Rain Forests

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty’s Government are taking to enhance biodiversity and the protection of the rain forests in south America, south-east Asia and Africa.

    The Prime Minister : On biodiversity, our activities are summarised in “Biological Diversity and Developing Countries : Issues and Options”, which was published last month and which is in the Library.

    British bilateral aid contributions to forest projects in progress or under consideration as at early 1991 are as follows :

    Area | Number of projects | Estimated aid | Programme costs | (£ million)

    —————————————————————————-

    South America |12 |10.5

    South East Asia<1> |9 |9.4

    Africa |74 |28.2

    <1> Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand.

     

    Environmental Protection and Enhancement Agency

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to publish the consultation paper on his proposals for an environmental protection and enhancement agency, announced on 8 July.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 8 July 1991 at column 279 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe).

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

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

  • PMQT – 11 July 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Patrick Duffy : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

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

    Sir Patrick Duffy : Is the Prime Minister aware that whatever reservations hon. Members may have about the rigour of his counter- inflation policy and its impact on growth, jobs and investment, it would attract more support if the Government had a more even-handed approach to it? How does he explain, for example, the statement last night by the latest power chief to receive a big pay rise–Mr. Weston of MANWEB–that the Government knew that his salary would soar?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman may know, the gentleman concerned has withdrawn that statement and withdrawn it unreservedly. As MANWEB said :

    “the higher levels of pay were not agreed until after the offer for sale was announced in November 1990. The Government did not place any restriction on the regional electricity companies in announcing likely figures at any time.”

    That was what was said and I endorse that as an accurate statement. Salaries after privatisation are and must be a matter for the company. But I have made my view perfectly clear; in my judgment those salaries should reflect what is reasonable. But it is a matter for the companies and not for me.

    Sir John Farr : Might I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has had a chance today in his list of engagements to look at the recent announcement by the Labour party that it apparently intends to–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The question must refer to the Government’s responsibility. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been away for a while, but his question must refer to the Government’s responsibility.

    Sir John Farr : I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will see it as his responsibility today to have an early debate on our nuclear deterrent and the need for us to keep it. Apparently the Opposition’s policy has suddenly changed. Rather than an announcement in the media, we should have a full, proper and open debate on the Floor of the House.

    The Prime Minister : First, I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House after his absence. We are very pleased to see him back in his place.

    My hon. Friend touched on defence, a matter of great importance not just to the House but to everyone in it and beyond it. I believe that there is considerable doubt about the position of the Opposition on defence, and I hope that they will take an early opportunity to make it clear whether they are unilateralist and in what circumstances they would use nuclear weapons.

    Mr. Hattersley : Does the Prime Minister still stick to his prediction that the British economy will recover during the second half of this year?

    The Prime Minister : Apparently the right hon. Gentleman does not want to discuss defence quite so soon. I remain of the opinion that I have expressed before in the House and which has been endorsed by the OECD and the CBI : that we shall begin to move out of recession in the second half of this year.

    Mr. Hattersley : Has it escaped the Prime Minister’s notice that the second half of the year began 11 days ago.

    Hon. Members : Oh!

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Hattersley : If the right hon. Gentleman’s prediction has any veracity why are we still at the bottom of the economic league? Why do we have the worst record of investment, unemployment and growth of all the G7 countries?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman might study the diary a little more closely to find out how long the second half of the year lasts. As usual, he is facing backwards. Five per cent. off the inflation rate and 3.5 per cent. off interest rates are both essential ingredients to get the economy moving again. That has happened and it will continue.

    Mr. Hattersley : With reference to the diary, I take it that the Prime Minister is now saying that the economy will begin to improve by Christmas. Every time he makes a prediction about improvement, he gets further and further away. I shall therefore ask him a simple question based on his own pathetic analysis of when the economy might begin to improve. First, can we be assured that by Christmas and in the three areas about which I have asked the right hon. Gentleman–investment, unemployment and growth–this country will be doing at least as well as Greece, Portugal and Turkey? May we also be assured– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Hattersley : Will the Prime Minister now also answer the question from which he ran away last Tuesday? Since, during the three years of decline, he has been Chief Secretary, Chancellor and Prime Minister, will he accept his own responsibility for those three years of disaster?

    The Prime Minister : On the subject of predictions, with which the right hon. Gentleman began his lengthy third question, he will recall predicting that unemployment would be 4 million in 1987–he is in no position to talk about predictions. As for the position at the end of the year, as a former sacked shadow Chancellor the right hon. Gentleman should know that we will set out our predictions in the autumn statement.

    Sir Peter Emery : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he and his Government will ensure that the military level of our forces will always be sufficient to meet the defence needs of the realm and of our military commitments overseas?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir.

     

    South London

    Q2. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister, when he will next pay an official visit to south London.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and I very much hope to include south London among them.

    Mr. Hughes : Given that youth unemployment has risen in the four inner south London boroughs by 53 per cent. in the past year, and that more than one in two crimes in the capital are committed by young people, will the Prime Minister, as a south London boy who became the youngest Prime Minister this century, make a personal commitment to the young people of south London by coming to visit them and the youth service south of the river, to see their desperate state and to make sure that he and the Government commit the personnel, resources, training and jobs to ensure that young people today have the opportunities that he is glad he had?

    The Prime Minister : I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the opportunities that are necessary for young people in the inner-London area. One of the principal problems for many years was the treatment of education under the regime of the Inner London education authority, which has been continued by the disgraceful attitude that some of the inner London boroughs take to the way in which they deal with education. That dramatically damages the employment prospects of youngsters. Another factor that caused unemployment in inner London was the capacity of Labour councils, under the old system, to put up business rates to such an extent that businesses left inner London.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : If my right hon. Friend gets the chance to come to south-east London, he will find himself in the area covered by the Greenwich building society and the Woolwich building society. Will he see whether it is possible, on Monday when clause 52 of the Finance Bill is considered in the House, to have an open debate on the way that that clause adversely affects the Greenwich building society, but not the Woolwich building society, so that Parliament can decide openly what should happen in the future?

    The Prime Minister : Parliament is always in a position to decide openly on the matters before it, and that will undoubtedly be the case when we debate the Finance Bill.

    Ms. Hoey : The Prime Minister knows that unemployment has risen in south London, and that he has cut training places there. When will he put more money into training there and give young people real training prospects?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Lady knows, quite apart from the general employment prospects and training that have been increased over the years, we have established two city technology colleges in south London. These will dramatically improve the prospects of the pupils in them. Prospects would be improved even more were other schools in inner London to adopt the same disciplines and to offer the same certainty of good education that CTCs offer.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Ian Bruce : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

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

    Mr. Bruce : My right hon. Friend will know that the people of south Dorset believe in a strong, credible and clearly stated defence policy. Will he ensure that the policy for defence is both credible and will deter aggression, and that it is well understood? That will be in contrast to the party opposite, which believes in fudged words, so as to avoid the wrath of its Back Benchers.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right, and I believe that he speaks for many people who do not trust the Opposition on defence. Yesterday, they produced a defence policy which appeared to protect them rather than the country. People will have noticed that. One cannot defend the country with a couple of sentences tucked away in an article in The Guardian. This country knows the Opposition only too well and it knows their unilateralist tendencies.

    Mr. Wilson : Less than a week ago, the Bank of England was giving a clean bill of health to the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Less than a week ago, the Department of the Environment was issuing that bank’s name as one suitable for local authorities to deal with. If officials of these two organisations, sitting in the heart of London, can make such a catastrophic error, does the Prime Minister have any sympathy with the officials of small local authorities in far-flung parts of the country which might have taken the advice of the Bank of England and the Department of the Environment? Will the Government and the Bank of England face up to their responsibilities in this matter?

    The Prime Minister : The Bank of England acted as soon as it had evidence on which to act, and that has been made clear. It would not be right to give preferential treatment to local authorities over other depositors of the BCCI. Any accountant of finance director should know that if an institution pays over the market rate of interest, it is in the form of a risk premium. Local authorities have a duty of care over the funds entrusted to them and that implies taking a prudent view of risk and spreading risk.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Maureen Hicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

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

    Mrs. Hicks : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in the drawing up of the Government’s Green Paper on industrial relations, he will take full account of the poll in The Guardian today, which shows clear majorities against a return to secondary action, flying pickets and unofficial strikes –policies which are all supported by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our trade union legislation has brought unprecedented improvements in industrial relations. Of course, they are unprecedented improvements which are not welcome to the Labour party. As Mr. Ron Todd said earlier this week :

    “Tory industrial relations law has got to go. There is no fudging the issue.”

    Labour’s position is absolutely clear. As the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said when he spoke to the TGWU yesterday– [Interruption.] As the right hon. Gentleman said– [Interruption.] I can wait, Mr. Speaker– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us hear the end of the Prime Minister’s answer.

    The Prime Minister : I know that Labour Members are embarrassed by what their leader said, but they are going to hear it. He said about the TGWU :

    “This union is the Labour party in so many ways.”

    He was right. The union calls the shots, it chooses the policies, and it even picks the leaders.