The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1991

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Education to Centre for Policy Studies – 3 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Centre for Policy Studies at the Cafe Royal in London on Wednesday 3rd July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    EDUCATION – ALL OUR FUTURES

    Some of you may wonder why I have selected the theme of education today. There are so many other developments, not least in Europe, preoccupying Parliament and public. But I make no apology. As you know, education is at the top of our agenda for the 1990s. As a matter of principle – and as a matter of practical need. For every year it becomes clearer that the strength of the British people will depend on their skills.

    You may say it was ever thus. Disraeli declared that the fate of the country depended on education, and almost every subsequent prime minister has echoed that sentiment. But it only seems to galvanise us into action just about every 30 or 40 years. The 1870 Education Act established universal education in England and Wales. Balfour’s Education Act came in 1902, and Butler’s Act in 1944. Now we are embarked on an even more radical series of reforms, which began in the 1980s and are continuing into the 1990s.

    Some people might feel tempted to say: “Look: we’re not daft. We know about the importance of education. We knew there was a lot to be done. But you’ve been in power for over a decade. Why haven’t you done it?”

    Politicians are sometimes accused of not answering the question.

    Be that as it may. In this case, I am prepared to be generous.

    I will give you not just one answer – but four.

    The first is that the problems we are grappling with today go back a long time. For all our efforts to catch up over the past century or so, most historians would agree on one thing. The origins of our nation’s insufficient regard for education, and particularly education for work, lie deep in our culture.

    On the one hand, we were suspicious of brain power. It made the squirearchy uncomfortable. Only in Britain could it have been thought a defect to be “too clever by half” – the epithet applied, most famously, to the late lain Macleod.

    This ancient prejudice was then reinforced by the left, with its mania for equality. Equality not of opportunity, but of outcome. This was a mania that condemned children to fall short of their potential; that treated them as if they were identical – or must be made so. A mania that undermined common sense values in schools, rejected proven teaching methods, debased standards – or disposed of them altogether. A canker in our education system which spread from the Sixties on, and deprived great cohorts of our children of the opportunities they deserved. I, for one, cannot find it easy to forgive the Left for that.

    On the other hand, we have inherited an almost equal disdain for vocational training – a superior attitude to industry, and a mild contempt for the practical man and woman. Compare the status of the engineer in Germany and in Britain and you are half-way to understanding this side of the problem.

    While respecting and enhancing academic values, we must infuse education with greater awareness of the needs of the economy. We are therefore tackling not one problem but two. It is not merely a matter of adjusting the curriculum, or restructuring institutions – important though those changes may be. We are changing a culture – and cultural changes take time.

    My second answer is this. No one can say that we have not made a bold beginning. More has been done to modernise our education and training in the 1980s than in the previous three and a half decades since the second world war.

    Let’s take, to begin with, the vocational side. Just remember for a moment where we started from.

    In 1979, there was no requirement to teach science or technology in our schools. No National Curriculum to ensure that every pupil studied maths and science, up to a required level of attainment.

    No imaginative schemes, such as the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative, to bring business into contact with teachers and pupils. No City Technology Colleges, such as the superb Harris CTC at Norwood, which I visited this morning.

    There were grant-maintained schools, such as the one I am looking forward to visiting later today. These are schools which have real responsibility for their own affairs. They will lever up standards by giving parents real choice, teachers real motivation, and pupils wider opportunities than ever before.

    There were no Training and Enterprise Councils to link the worlds of education and work. No national training schemes. No coherent structure of high-level vocational qualifications; nothing to compare with the system of National Vocational Qualifications that the Government is presently engaged in streamlining.

    And it was this Government that gave the polytechnics their independence. The results are plain. They have flourished. They have attracted ever greater levels of interest from highly-qualified students. And they have attracted praise for their work from all-corners.

    In recognition of their success, we have – as you know – recently announced that we are removing the artificial “binary line” between universities and polytechnics. That will help to give the polys the status they deserve, not just in this country but in the rest of Europe. And I know they will not take it as a signal to imitate the universities, but as a vote of confidence in their own distinct and practical mission.

    And then they ask what we have been doing, for the past 12 years!

    My third point is this. In education Governments have been – in that fashionable phrase – largely confined to the role of enablers. We can direct a larger share of resources to education – and that we have done. In the 1980s, spending per school pupil trebled. Even after allowing for inflation, it rose by 40% in the decade.

    But that could not guarantee higher standards. Government, parents, inspectors, examiners, employers – but most particularly, teachers – all have a part to play. The drive to raise standards in all our public services is moving forward under the banner of our Citizen’s Charter, whose principles will be unveiled later this month. I will return to its relevance to education in a moment.

    The fourth and last part of my answer to that question on our Conservative record goes back, again, to our culture. For it would be a poor sort of country that abandoned interest in its past, in the race for technological expertise. A Conservative society is one that knows about and respects its roots, while having the self-confidence to embrace new ideas. A society that values learning for its own sake – as well as for its economic benefit.

    Education is more than the acquisition of skills. The intrinsic worth of a trained mind was summed up by Aristotle with immortal conviction. “The life according to reason”, he wrote, “is best and pleasantest, since reason more than anything else is man.” A truth, perhaps, not universally acknowledged in the House of Commons.

    We have therefore been engaged in the struggle to resist insidious attacks on literature and history in our schools. It is a struggle that must continue. That is why I attach great importance to the study of English. It is also why I am suspicious of the claim that this can be done with minimal regard to the structure of the language – or with only the most cursory acquaintance with pre-twentieth-century literature.

    It is why I have resisted calls to scrap A-levels – though I understand the arguments for widening the curriculum, and we have acted on them. It is why I would like to see all those responsible, at all levels, insist on higher examination standards in arts subjects, as well as more directly vocational studies.

    I say this not out of some romantic attachment to the past; but out of a conviction that past values and future needs complement each other. Those who argue that spelling should not be corrected ignore the world we live in, as well as the language we inherited. A world in which it matters to fill in a job application correctly. In which numeracy is a necessity. And in which vital export orders depend on the ability to communicate effectively, first in one’s own language and then in other people’s.

    Our educational reforms have been driven by three interlocking ambitions. To raise standards. To widen choice. And to increase the accountability of the system to those who use and pay for it. These principles will drive our reforms forward in the 1990s, too. For there is still much to be done.

    Too many youngsters reach 16 without any sense of where their education has been leading; without the motivation to take school learning forward into further education or training.

    Too often teachers’ expectations of their pupils are too low. It is particularly disturbing to find that it is less able children who have suffered most from the zealous adoption of fashionable theories. It is they who have suffered from excessive reliance on mixed-ability teaching and from hostility to testing. And it is the least able who have most to lose from left-wing waste of precious education resources. There are, I fear, city education authorities employing more bureaucrats than teachers. And the shameful state of affairs in Lambeth speaks for itself.

    To deliver higher standards, more choice and greater accountability in education will require a professional and highly-motivated teaching force. Teachers with the confidence to face rigorous and independent inspection, and to provide full information to parents about the results of their work. Let me say a little more about how we aim to bring that state of affairs about.

    First, standards. The introduction of the National Curriculum has been the fundamental first step. It is providing – for the first time – a clear framework setting out what pupils should know, understand and be able to do, at each stage of their schooling.

    This change is truly revolutionary. It requires the organised teaching of facts and skills. It provides a guarantee that science and technology will be taught in our primary schools; that history and geography will enjoy their rightful place in the syllabus; and that every pupil will have to study a foreign language for five years. It puts special emphasis on the fundamentals in maths and English.

    But it needs to be implemented flexibly. The National Curriculum must be a framework, not a straitjacket. It must be a guide for teachers, not a substitute for good classroom teaching. We are introducing refinements as it is brought in. On one, in particular, I lay great importance: allowing some young people, after the age of 14, to specialise in technical subjects, as they are able to do in so many other European countries.

    It is already clear that the National Curriculum has brought a new sense of purpose in schools up and down the country. At first the idea met with blind hostility in predictable quarters – and more understandable apprehension in others. But an impressive consensus has quickly emerged as to its value. Parents, teachers, employers and even our political opponents – winning the wooden spoon as always – agree that a great advance has been made.

    But to set standards is not enough. In the interests of children, we need to know whether standards are being met. This requires regular assessment of their progress.

    Let there be no doubt about the Government’s position. Tests are essential. And tests are here to stay. Of course, tests are not the be-all and end-all of education. We are not in the business of putting pressure on our children. But we must be able to measure their progress in an objective and regular manner.

    Tests for seven year olds and eleven year olds must deal precisely with the core skills – the “three Rs”. We need to know where things are going wrong, at an early age – or we will never be able to put them right.

    It is early days – and I readily accept that we may not have got the process right yet. Where it is wrong, we will change it. Testing must not dominate the classroom. It must not swamp schools in paperwork. Nor should it be driven by too theoretical an approach. We need to shift the emphasis towards shorter, standardised tests, which the whole class can take at one time.

    We must also make sure that the established systems of testing older children maintain their value. This means addressing those criticisms of GCSE that give rise to a suspicion that standards are at risk.

    It is clear that there is now far too much course work, project work and teacher assessment in GCSE. The remedy surely lies in getting GCSE back to being an externally assessed exam, which is predominantly written. I am attracted to the idea that for most subjects a maximum of 20 per cent of the marks should be obtainable from coursework. This, of course, is the sound principle we have recently proposed for A-levels.

    And we must also ensure that GCSE is properly calibrated to challenge the most able. We short-change our brightest children if we devalue the currency of the exams they take.

    The same principles apply to that higher benchmark of excellence – the A-level. If the transition from GCSE to A-levels is causing difficulties, we must level GCSE up, not lower A-level standards.

    But it is equally vital to raise the esteem in which vocational qualifications are held. As you all know, the Government has set out radical proposals. These are designed to break down artificial barriers, which for too long have divided an academic education from a vocational one.

    This is a crucial reform, and I am delighted by the very favourable reception that it has received. Challenging vocational qualifications are now being developed. The new diplomas announced in the White Paper will pull the two streams together, recording achievement in either or both, or in combinations of the two.

    Providing a wider range of examinations, which lead to worthwhile qualifications, is a way of creating real choice in education. Choice and diversity are central to our aims. For uniformity is the curse of giant public services. The monolith must be broken up, and made more responsive to parents and pupils. I am glad to say the revolution is well under way.

    – Next term, there will be 91 grant-maintained schools, and I am delighted to be told that there are many more ballots in the pipeline.

    – Next term, we shall have 13 City Technology Colleges up and running. They are meeting head-on a demand for technical education, which as a country we have neglected for a century past.

    – Under local management – pioneered in my own county, Cambridgeshire – schools are now in command of their own resources. By 1993 local authorities will be obliged to have delegated 85 per cent of their potential schools budget. I compliment those that have seen local management as an opportunity not a threat, and are above this target already.

    – Go-ahead local authorities are busy innovating. Wandsworth, for example, is working to achieve the following choice of secondary schools: two City Technology Colleges, three “magnet” specialist schools, three voluntary-aided church schools and two grant-maintained schools. Lincolnshire, which has perhaps gone further than any other long-standing LEA to encourage schools to take advantage of independence, is also planning to sponsor its own CTC.

    – In 1993 further education and sixth form colleges will follow polytechnics into freedom from local authority control.

    – Last, but by no means least, there is the thriving independent sector, whose peaks of excellence set an example to the whole education system.

    I see a special future for grant-maintained schools. I would like to see more of them in the Inner Cities. We need new institutions to break the mould of political extremism and bureaucratic inefficiency that too often characterises these areas. It is deprived children in the bad schools in the worst boroughs whom I most want the Government’s reforms to help.

    In time I am quite sure that the grant-maintained concept will win hearts and minds in every community. But maybe something more needs to be done to prepare the ground.

    I can therefore tell some further legislation is needed. We must ensure that the wishes of parents and governors are not thwarted by unreasonable behaviour on the part of education authorities.

    We propose to smooth the path to grant-maintained status. Too many local authorities are spending too much on campaigns against applications for grant-maintained status. Some are even campaigning against the wishes of parents. So we will severely limit the amount of taxpayers’ money an education authority can spend on such campaigns. And we will reimburse governing bodies, up to the same limit, for their own campaign expenses.

    Nor will this be all. We shall be putting forward a number of other measures to help the fledgling grant-maintained sector. Today I will single out but two. First, we will stop local authorities removing or disposing of a school’s assets while it is applying for grant-maintained status. And second, we will require primary schools to provide information about admission to all publicly-funded secondary schools, including grant-maintained schools.

    We will also legislate to remove the technical and legal obstacles that stand in the way of those voluntary-aided schools that wish to become City Technology Colleges.

    We will go one step further, creating another new kind of school. We will enable existing schools to transform themselves into grant-maintained technology colleges. These will incorporate the key characteristics of CTCs – a focus on technical education, supported by private sector sponsors.

    Which leads me back – again – to accountability. Accountability, first and foremost, to parents. For what the CTCs have shown plainly is just how frustrated many thousands of parents are in their search for excellence. There have been over 8000 applications for the 2600 places available at CTCs this September. Parents know what is on offer: high standards of work, attendance and aspiration. The CTCs can give a good account of themselves to parents – and they do. At the Harris CTC, for example, I’m told that 2000 turned up for a prospective parents’ evening.

    We have sought to make room for parents within the cosy relationship between local education authorities, their schools and their advisers and inspectors. Governors and heads have been given the freedom to run their own schools, but there must be parents on the governing body. Schools now have the freedom to break away altogether from the local authority if they wish – but it is votes of parents which decide the matter.

    I have never yet come across parents who did not want to know how their children are doing at school both in relation to their own ability and in relation to the rest of the class. But far too many have the devil’s own job finding out. And the country needs to know how schools as a whole are doing. Parents and taxpayers – parents who are also taxpayers – have a common interest in knowing what is being achieved in our schools.

    So as part of our plans for the Citizen’s Charter – we will be obliging schools to provide better and more accessible information about their performance. Exam and test results, of course. And – from next term – information on attendance rates, a change which I regard as long overdue. But I want to see more: for example, information about numbers staying on at 16. I also want to turn the school inspector into the parent’s friend. Too much of the valuable information in inspectors’ reports is effectively hidden from those who most need to know. As part of our Citizen’s Charter reforms, we intend to increase the independence – and openness – of the inspection process.

    All this is part of our long-standing intent to empower parents within the education system, so they can make better-informed choices about what is best for their children. But – as no-one knows better than parents – the quality of education depends on the quality and commitment of our teachers.

    My main message to teachers is simple, but important. We wouldn’t be doing half what we are doing if we did not have a high regard for the profession. I have made it very plain that I do. Indeed, I married into it. But before anybody says that the proof of the pudding lies in the pay, let me remind you of two central decisions taken since I became Prime Minister. The first was the Government’s decision to honour in full, during the course of this year, the recent pay award – at a time when pay settlements in the rest of the economy were coming down to much lower figures. And the second was the decision to establish a Pay Review Body for teachers, intended to provide peace in the classroom and fair pay for teachers for many years to come.

    We must also ensure they have the best training. We are now looking hard at teacher training. The course criteria are now much tighter than they were. Much less theory. Much more practice. All teachers must now have direct classroom experience and a proper grounding in the basic subjects. They must be able to recognise the problems of children with special learning difficulties. This is good progress.

    We want now to see more of the training based in school. Teachers must have the training they need, not what the colleges think they ought to have. Over 600 mostly older teachers have now been licensed to teach -without having to go back to college. By this autumn almost 1,000 teachers will be in the classroom, through the Articled Teacher Scheme. This is more progress. We need also to make it much easier than it is now for older people to qualify as teachers, through part and full-time training courses which build on their life experience rather than being identical to the courses which are offered to school leavers.

    The changes I have outlined – as well as the ones still to come – have of course thrown a large burden on schools. There are, and will be, teething troubles. But the critics of government action cannot have it all ways at once. The accusation that we have not done enough about education sits ill with the complaint that too much is happening.

    All change is, of course, unsettling. And I have said enough today to make it plain that we are at a time of enormous change – change in both the forms and ambitions of our education system. But the best teachers will, I know, recognise the opportunities this offers.

    I have barely touched today on higher education, which is the area of our education system where expansion is most spectacular – and we have a great story to tell. Our university and polytechnic courses are admired around the world. Our academic community has achieved a great deal in teaching, scholarship and research. Many of you here are well-placed to know that. And the proportion of our young people benefitting from higher education is rising sharply. In 1979 it was 1 in 8 of our 18 and 19 year olds. It is now better than 1 in 5, and on current trends will be approaching 1 in 3 by the year 2000.

    This success story prompts me to emphasise one important and topical point. An integral part of the single European market is mutual recognition of qualifications and diplomas. Much progress has already been made on this. The ability of young people to make use of their qualifications throughout Europe will play a key role in fostering an unforced sense of closer European identity. The esteem in which our higher education is held gives us pole position in this process and I intend to keep it that way.

    The ambitions I have shared with you today can only sketch the outline of the system we may see by the year 2000. For this time, the pattern of reform is being coloured in by millions of individual choices.

    This means parents’ choices of the kind of education they want for their children. Teenagers’ choices of courses and qualifications. School leavers’ choices of further education or training, provided by the new credits we are offering them – “smart cards” to spend on training as they see fit. And wide choice in a rapidly expanding, newly united higher education sector.

    The outcome will not, as too often in the past, depend entirely on government decree. So it cannot be predicted with the same certainty. But three consequences can be forecast with confidence.

    First, with higher standards and greater accountability in education, teaching is set to be one of the most challenging careers of the decade. Nothing less than the best will do – and the best can be sure they will be satisfactorily rewarded. Secondly, education will be a growth industry. Our appetite for good quality education expands with affluence and international competition. And finally, carrying through the reform of education will be a challenging task for the Government. I am privileged to lead in the 1990s. It is a challenge we accept with enthusiasm.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministerial Correspondence

    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will remind all Ministers of the requirement that with all ministerial replies to Members’ letters, a copy of the Minister’s letter must always be enclosed.

    The Prime Minister : I have asked my hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary to write to Ministers’ offices.

     

    Engagements

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

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

     

    University Funding

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet Sir Edward Parkes, chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, to discuss university funding.

    The Prime Minister : I have told the CVCP that I am ready to meet them in due course to discuss their proposals for achieving the desired expansion of higher education with greater efficiency.

     

    Information Bulletin

    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the information bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the parliamentary assemblies of the Council of Europe and the assembly of the Western European Union which has been sent to him.

    The Prime Minister : I have done so today.

  • PMQT – 2 July 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Harry Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Ewing : Is the Prime Minister aware that the prospectuses for PowerGen and other privatised industries say that Her Majesty’s Government do not expect to use their shareholding to vote on resolutions before the annual general meetings of those companies, but–this is the important point–that they reserve the right to do so? Will the Prime Minister, for once, act decisively, do as he did in the case of the chairmen of the banks and call in the chairmen and chief executives of all the privatised industries and make it clear to them that he will use the power given to him in the prospectus to intervene and stop the obscene salary increases that they are granting to themselves–or is this yet another example of all talk, all dither and no action?

    The Prime Minister : I have made clear my view on the large increases on a number of occasions. I have also made it clear that the freedom given in the prospectus is not to be used in that fashion. The hon. Gentleman has been told that before and I reiterate it now.

    Mrs. Roe : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to look into the effect on the employment of women of implementing the provisions in the social charter which relate to part-time work? Will not the social charter, which is fully supported by the Labour party, destroy job opportunities for women and restrict the flexibility of part-time work from which so many women benefit?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. We are able to support parts of the social charter, but the draft directions on part-time work would add substantially to the cost to British industry and, in so doing, cost the jobs of many people.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the Prime Minister still certain that, as he promised just two weeks ago, Britain will come out of recession in the second half of this year?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I still believe that we will see the economy move out of recession during the second half of this year. That view is echoed by a number of independent commentators and I see no reason to revise our previous forecasts.

    Mr. Kinnock : The engineering employers, steel makers, car manufacturers and retailers are all telling the Government in clear terms that the serious losses of jobs, output and capacity will continue for the rest of this year and even into 1992 and beyond. What evidence does the Prime Minister have to demonstrate that those people, who certainly live in the real world, are wrong?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the latest CBI survey is precisely in line with the Red Book forecasts, which show that the economy will come out of recession in the second half of this year. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that the G7 Finance Ministers agreed that the world economy was moving out of recession and back into growth. The impact of that will certainly assist our recovery in the second half of this year.

    Mr. Kinnock : As for the forecasts of recovery from the world recession, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which other major industrial country has had a zero-minus-growth rate this year– [Interruption.] Under the policies of this Government– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Interruptions take a lot of time.

    Mr. Kinnock : Under the policies of this Government, a zero growth rate would be an improvement.

    Can the Prime Minister tell us which other major industrialised country has has a growth rate of minus 2 per cent. this year? What sort of recovery can the right hon. Gentleman look forward to, when every manufacturer in Britain clearly records a loss of capacity and of confidence that have eroded the British manufacturing base for the second time in 10 years?

    The Prime Minister : As for the long-term strength of British industry, the right hon. Gentleman should read the recent comment by the director general of the CBI. He said :

    “Virtually everything associated with our manufacturing base is better today than it was in the so-called golden era’”

    to which so many people look back fondly. The director general was right– that was the era of strikes, loss of delivery, lost market shares and Labour.

    Sir Ian Lloyd : My right hon. Friend will doubtless have had reported to him the serious news that the Japanese research and development total exceeded £9 billion for the first time last month. Of that sum, £1.5 billion is spent by the five largest semiconductor firms in Japan, exceeding the total research and development expenditure on semiconductors of the United States and western Europe. Had this matter been considered by the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology, which my right hon. Friend chairs? If it has, does that committee share the views of the congressional committee on semiconductor dependency about the serious implications that that has for the defence and the industrial base of the western world?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend rightly makes the point that the huge research and development in the private sector has brought about the remarkable improvement in Japanese productivity in recent years. I shall chair a meeting of ACOST in the near future and I expect that that is one of the matters that we shall discuss.

     

    Q2. Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Nellist : Is the Prime Minister aware that 16-year-olds on youth training have had their allowance frozen at £29.50 for several years and that, had their allowance risen since 1978 in line with average earnings, it would be £68.60 today? How does the Prime Minister think that those youngsters feel when they again read reports in the press that the heads of newly privatised industries such as PowerGen are awarding themselves pay rises of up to 163 per cent? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that those youngsters are worth so much less than Mr. Wallis?

    The Prime Minister : As I said a few moments ago, I have made my opinion on these large increases perfectly clear. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have a more substantial employment package for young people than this country has ever had and it was added to just a fortnight ago by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

     

    European Single Currency

    Q3. Mr. Janman : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the benefits accruing from a single currency in the European Community to the United Kingdom and other European Community countries either now or in the future.

    The Prime Minister : Theoretically, a single currency within a single trading area can save industry the risks and costs of exchange rate transactions. It also saves ordinary travellers cost and inconvenience. Of course, all those advantages apply to a common currency such as that which the United Kingdom has proposed. But the economic benefits of a single currency can be exaggerated and they carry economic risks with them. If widely divergent economies are forced into the straitjacket of a single currency, the strains in the system may be unsustainable.

    Mr. Janman : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Was he in the Chamber last week to hear the critical but interesting observation that a federal state bears three distinguishing marks? One of those marks is the existence of a single currency and of a central bank. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sentiments behind that observation, made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), fly in the face of the Labour party’s policy on Europe?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that the Labour party is split on the question of Europe.

    Sir Russell Johnston : If the Prime Minister is saying that he agrees that a single currency is acceptable in principle, is not it also logical that a European central bank should control European-wide interest rates?

    The Prime Minister : What I have said repeatedly about a single currency is that if it is market driven and if it is required, it is acceptable to us in principle. However, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say yesterday, we have maintained our reserve on the prescriptive single currency which is at present before the Community.

    Mr. Favell : With my right hon. Friend’s successful Luxembourg conference behind him, will he reject any new proposals to interfere with the Government’s right to tax, to spend and to fix interest rates, as otherwise the non-imposition of a single currency could be but a hollow victory?

    The Prime Minister : We are still at the very early stage of negotiations on economic and monetary union. I have already made it clear that I am as jealous as any other hon. Member of the rights of the House.

    Mr. Spearing : Is the Prime Minister aware that last Friday I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what studies had been made into the benefits for the United Kingdom of economic and monetary union? He answered by referring in column 541 to a written answer that he had given to me on 7 December at column 216. Both answers showed that no study had been made of the benefits. As the First Lord of the Treasury, will the Prime Minister tell us why that is so?

    The Prime Minister : I set out in my original answer to my hon. Friend a few moments ago what the theoretical advantages of a single currency would be. The hon. Gentleman may care to read that answer.

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Hayward : Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider the impact on income tax of a massive increase in public spending? Will he in particular say whether he has received any detailed written response to the analysis of the Labour party’s programme which was issued by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about a fortnight ago?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend makes a telling point. I can confirm that I have received no such written response. The Opposition are remarkably coy about their spending plans. These days they set great store by the Financial Times, but, as that newspaper said recently :

    “Any Labour Government would face clear choices : either unsustainable borrowing, or significantly higher taxation, or a great many disappointed hopes for higher public spending”–

    or, of course, all three.

     

    Q5. Mr. Eadie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Eadie : In view of the Government-inspired vendetta against the miners and their union, which is now in disrepute, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that we are not on the verge of another scandal? As the Government have authorised Rothschild bank, Touche Ross and Geoffrey Chancer to advise the Government on the privatisation of the coal industry, will the Prime Minister give us an assurance today that the £6.5 billion miners pension fund will not be used as bait to sell off our coal industry?

    The Prime Minister : There is no vendetta against the miners. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to Question Time a few days ago, he would have heard of the number of miners in Nottinghamshire, for example, who now earn well over £20,000 a year, so little is the vendetta of the Government.

     

    Q6. Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Field : May I refer my right hon. Friend to my ten-minute Bill on 29 June 1988, at column 399 of the Official Report, when I proposed financial penalties on parents of perpetual truants? In the process of introducing the Bill, I referred to the 1985 Home Office report on parental supervision and delinquency. Has not the case been proved that if parents are careless of the whereabouts of their children, the children are more likely to offend? Is not it high time that we tightened up the rules on truancy? As my old friend, ex-prison governor and Isle of Wight broadcaster C. A. Joyce used to say, “I never met a criminal from a loving and caring home.”

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is vital that parents fulfil their duty to secure their children’s education. As my hon. Friend will know, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill, the maximum fine for the parents of truants will rise to £1,000. We are very concerned to bring an end to truancy and, through that and other policies, we will seek to do so.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 July 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nuclear Test Veterans

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet Mr. Kenneth McGinley, chairman of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on 18 April 1991 at column 568.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Luxembourg European Council – 1 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on the 1st July 1991 on the European Council held in Luxembourg held from 28th-29th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Luxembourg on 28 and 29 June. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the United Kingdom.

    It was clear from the events there that Yugoslavia must be the first item on our agenda. I discussed the overnight position with Prime Minister Lubbers and with Chancellor Kohl before the Council opened. We were able to reach rapid agreement in the Council on invoking the emergency mechanisms of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and a meeting is taking place in Vienna this afternoon. We also agreed to dispatch to Yugoslavia the Foreign Ministers of the troika–Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Italy. Their visit brought some respite in the conflict, but the situation was very fragile yesterday and the Foreign Ministers returned to Yugoslavia yesterday afternoon. They secured agreement to the appointment of Mr. Mesic of Croatia as the next President of Yugoslavia and to other measures to defuse the crisis. The situation remains very volatile and the Community will need to be closely involved over the coming weeks. In the meantime, Community aid to Yugoslavia has been suspended. British citizens have been advised to leave Slovenia.

    The main item of scheduled business was to discuss progress in the two intergovernmental conferences launched last year, one on economic and monetary union and the other on political union. Discussion centred on the issues raised in a draft treaty text circulated by the presidency, though there was no detailed negotiation of the text itself.

    This European Council–as we had wanted–was a stocktaking. It was not the occasion to take decisions, but we have registered the considerable progress made in the Luxembourg presidency as well as our collective will to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December. The conclusions, which have been placed in the Library of the House, incorporate a number of points of importance to the United Kingdom.

    I made it clear that I welcomed the structure of the present draft of the treaty, although some other partners in the Community disagree with it strongly. The present text means that some things are done on the basis of the treaty of Rome but others on the basis of intergovernmental action in which the treaty of Rome does not apply and the Commission does not have the sole right of initiative. I welcomed the concept of a common foreign and security policy set firmly within the context of the Atlantic alliance and stressed the need to work by consensus in this crucial area.

    There is agreement on the preparation of proposals to improve the implementation of Community law. That reflects a British proposal that would enable the European Court of Justice to fine member states that fail to comply with Community legislation. We have long argued for a level playing field and for full respect of the rule of law, and we are determined to get it. We have a good record on implementation and we believe that all states that sign up to Community law should implement it.

    The conclusions call for early progress on the remaining legislation needed to complete the single market. This means in particular measures on insurance, and air, sea and road transport, which are of importance to this country.

    The Council discussed the need to strengthen the Community’s external perimeter boundary if free movement of people is to be able to take place within it. We also agreed to better co-ordination in the fight against international drug trafficking and organised crime through the establishment of a European Criminal Investigation Office.

    The conclusions also commit us to strengthening the Community’s links with the countries of central and eastern Europe. This will initially take the form of association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Government hope that those countries–and probably others–will be ready for full membership in due course.

    I also made it clear that there were things in the present draft treaty with which I could not agree, and it was understood that nothing could be agreed until everything is agreed at the conclusion of these discussions. I explained that even though to many federal union implies decentralisation, the term carried the reverse implication in this country and would not be acceptable in a text to be agreed at the end of the year.

    I explained our reservations about the existing text on the role of the European Parliament. We see a strong case for an increased role for the European Parliament in areas such as control over the Commission through audit of expenditure and measures to safeguard the rights of Community citizens, including the appointment of a European ombudsman. The text entirely reserves our position on the issue of co-decision. The present proposal, involving a complicated conciliation procedure, would not in our view improve Community decision-taking.

    In the discussion on economic and monetary union I maintained our reserve on a single currency and a single central bank. We discussed the issue of economic convergence. The need for such convergence is increasingly recognised by our partners, but the nature and extent of that convergence and its relationship with possible target dates for moves to stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union are still for negotiation. All other member states understand that there must, in any case, be a separate decision by the Government and this House on whether the United Kingdom would move to a single currency and, if so, when.

    The European Council has issued a number of political declarations which are also available in the Library of the House.

    The Council endorsed the initiative that I took in April to establish a United Nations register of conventional arms transfers, and we will together table a draft resolution on this at the United Nations General Assembly.

    The Council also endorsed a British and German initiative to improve the co-ordination of disaster relief within the United Nations system. We envisage the appointment of a high-level co-ordinator, with direct access to emergency funding and with the authority to pull together the whole disaster relief operation. We are taking that initiative forward in the United Nations now. At British initiative, the Council agreed a text on human rights, the first such declaration ever adopted by the European Council. The Community will use its leverage to promote human rights through the economic and co-operation agreements which it makes with third countries.

    We welcomed the abolition in South Africa of the remaining legislative pillars of apartheid. We also declared our support for the renewal of sporting links with South Africa on a case-by-case basis where unified and non-racial sporting bodies have been set up. The establishment of such an independent and non-racial body for cricket was announced on the same day.

    I believe that this European Council was a good example of the Community at work. We took rapid action to respond to the crisis in Yugoslavia and will continue to work together for a peaceful settlement. We took stock in a businesslike way of the progress made under Luxembourg’s chairmanship. There are difficult issues still to be resolved. As in any negotiation, there will have to be give and take and a judgment will have to be made by the Government and by the House on the overall package at the end of the negotiation. There was a common determination in Luxembourg to work for an agreed outcome to the negotiations by the end of the year. I shall continue to argue for what I believe to be in the interests of our own country and the interests of the Community as a whole.

  • Luxembourg European Council Presidency Conclusions – 29 June 1991

    Below is the text of the European Council Presidency Conclusions following the Luxembourg European Council held on the 28th and 29th June 1991.

    The European Council heard a statement by Mr BARON, President of the European Parliament, devoted mainly to outlining the European Parliament’s position on current discussions in the Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union and that on Economic and Monetary Union.

    Intergovernmental Conferences

    The European Council took note of the draft Treaty prepared by the Luxembourg Presidency in the light of proceedings at the two Conferences. It welcomed the considerable progress that had been made since the two European Councils held in Rome.

    The European Council confirms that the proceedings of these two Conferences should continue in parallel. The final decision on the text of the Treaty on Political Union and on Economic and Monetary Union will be taken by the Maastricht European Council so that the results of the two Conferences can be submitted for ratification simultaneously during 1992 and the new Treaty can enter into force on 1 January 1993.

    The European Council considers that the Presidency’s draft forms the basis for the continuation of negotiations, both as regards most of the principal points contained in it and the state of play at the two Conferences, on the understanding that final agreement by the Member States will only be given to the Treaty as a whole.

    Political Union

    The European Council’s discussions have gone into greater detail on some issues for which a solution is crucial to the success of the negotiations. It has established the following general guidelines:

    Principles

    The European Council considers that the Union should be based on the following principles, as decided at the European Council in Rome on 13 and 14 December 1990: full maintenance of the “acquis communautaire” and development thereof, a single institutional framework with procedures appropriate to the requirements of the various spheres of action, the evolving. nature of the process of integration or union, the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of economic and social cohesion.

    The European Council also stresses the importance of establishing Union citizenship as a fundamental element in the construction of Europe.

    Common foreign and security policy

    The Presidency’s draft reflects the unanimous desire to reinforce the identity and role of the Union as a political entity on the international scene, as well as the concern to ensure the consistency of all its external activities. The decision-making process for implementation of the common foreign and security policy has still to be examined. Common foreign and security policy will extend to all questions relating to the security of the Union.

    The European Council has agreed that the question of strengthening the defence identity of the Union will be decided at the final stage of the Conference. That identity will take account of the traditional positions of certain Member States. The role of the WEU, which is an essential part of the process of European integration, will be clarified.

    The Community Member States which are party to the Treaty on the Atlantic Alliance, in accordance with the guidelines established at the recent meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in Copenhagen, regard the ultimate reinforcement of a European defence identity as an important contribution to the strengthening of the Atlantic Alliance. In the immediate future, they will endeavour to work out common guidelines with a view to the forthcoming NATO Summit in Rome.

    Democratic legitimacy

    The European Council considers the Presidency’s draft to contain significant proposals strengthening the European Parliament’s political, legislative and monitoring role, which must go hand in hand with development of the Union. The European Council has also noted that achieving a consensus on the principle of a co-decision procedure will be an important political part of the final agreement. In the Presidency’s view, this procedure will initially be applied to a number of suitable areas, with the possibility of extending it further as the Union progresses.

    For some Member States, acceptance of the co-decision principle is linked to overall progress in the development of Community policies, particularly in the social and environmental fields, in accordance with the proposals contained in the Presidency’s draft.

    Social policy

    The European Council emphasized the need to strengthen the Community’s social dimension in the context of Political Union and Economic and Monetary Union. It thinks that the Community’s role in this area should be stepped up and its action made more effective, with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and the respective roles of the Member States and the social partners, in accordance with national practices and traditions. This general approach must not call into question or in any way affect national social security and social protection schemes.

    Economic and social cohesion

    The European Council believes that ever closer economic and social cohesion is an integral part of the general development of the Union and it considers that this aspect should be embodied in the Treaty in an appropriate way.

    It heard a statement from the President of the Commission on the effects of the policies currently being pursued by the Community from the point of view of economic and social cohesion, and on the outlook in this area. It asked the Commission to clarify the various ideas put forward in the statement in time for the next European Council.

    The European Council has already stressed the particular importance in this context of establishing major infrastructure networks at European level.

    Implementation of Community Law

    The European Council agreed in principle to the approach in the Presidency’s draft, designed to improve the implementation of Community law.

    Home affairs and judicial co-operation

    The European Council noted with interest the practical proposals submitted by the German delegation, which supplement the work already carried out in this area (see Annex I).

    The European Council agreed on the objectives underlying these proposals and instructed the Conference to examine them further with a view to revision of the Union Treaty.

    Economic and Monetary Union

    The Intergovernmental Conference has revealed, with its draft Treaty and the draft statute of the ESCB annexed thereto, that there are broad areas of agreement on the basic components of EMU. At the next European Council these draft texts should be finalized according to the guidelines worked out there and in keeping with the European Council’s conclusions of 27 and 28 October 1990, recalling the United Kingdom reserve attached thereto.

    The European Council emphasizes the need to make satisfactory and lasting progress with economic and monetary convergence as of now, and as part of the first stage of Economic and Monetary Union, with particular reference to price stability and sound public finance.

    In this context, the European Council notes that in the near future several Governments intend to submit specific multi-annual programmes designed to secure the requisite progress on convergence, which will quantify the objectives and the means of securing them. The European Council would encourage other Governments to submit such programmes and calls upon the Commission and the ECOFIN Council to report regularly on the implementation of these programmes and on progress with convergence.

    Internal Market

    1. The European Council points to the importance for business and consumers and for the future development of the Community of the internal market being completed within the time limits laid down. It notes that three quarters of the measures provided for in the White Paper have been decided. In particular it welcomes the agreement reached at the latest ECOFIN Council on the alignment of VAT rates and excise duties which opens the way to the completion of an area without frontiers on 1 January 1993. The European Council records with satisfaction that the approximation of excise duties on diesel oil will make it possible, as it requested at its meeting in Rome, to substantially reduce distortions of competition in the road transport sector within the context of a comprehensive and coherent transport policy. As regards road transport, liberalization should be extended to transit third countries. The European Council calls upon the Council to finalize the dossier on the taxation of road transport with reference to the aspects which have still to be examined in depth, namely the tax on commercial vehicles and the subject of tolls. The European Council also noted the recent progress made in the field of insurance, the opening up of public procurement, road safety, controls on the possession of arms and veterinary and plant-health legislation.

    The various Community institutions must do everything in their power so that the entire legislative programme required for completing the large market may be adopted by 31 December 1991 at the latest, due regard being had to the time needed for implementation at national level.

    1. In this context, the following deserve particular attention during the next half year: public procurement in the service sector, financial services, co-operation between undertakings, and in particular the Statute of the European Company, definitive arrangements in the field of insurance, pharmaceuticals and the veterinary and plant-health sectors. In the field of indirect taxation, all the necessary decisions will have to be taken as soon as possible to give effect to the agreement reached in the ECOFIN Council.

    Alongside harmonization of the conditions of competition in the transport sector, the necessary measures will have to be adopted before the end of the year in preparation for the final phase of air transport liberalization; progress will also have to be made before the end of the year on liberalizing cabotage.

    On a more general level, the European Council recalled the importance of ensuring that the competitiveness of European industry can develop under favourable conditions. It emphasized in particular the need for the industrial sector to adapt continuously to structural changes, subject to respect for the principles of an open and competitive economy.

    1. Lastly, the European Council emphasizes the importance for the credibility of the integration process under way of correct and proper implementation by the Member States of the acts adopted by the Community and ratification of conventions signed by the Member States. It notes with satisfaction that the situation has improved regarding the incorporation of Directives into national law and invites each Government to take all necessary steps to make up for time lost so far and the Commission to report back to it for its next meeting.

    Social Dimension

    The European Council notes that the progress made in the completion of the internal market has not been accompanied by comparable progress in the field of social policy. It emphasizes that the Community, the Member States and the representatives of employers and employees should play a role in the implementation of the principles contained in the “Social Charter” according to their respective responsibilities.

    It requests in particular that the discussions begun in the Social Affairs Council on the Commission’s action programme for implementing the Charter should be intensified so that the necessary decisions can be reached, at an early date, having regard for the specific situation and practices of each Member State.

    Free Movement of Persons

    The European Council welcomes the fact that all the Member States have signed the Convention on Asylum.

    The European Council notes with satisfaction that a very important step towards the creation of an area without internal frontiers where persons may move freely under the terms of the Treaty will be accomplished very shortly when full agreement is reached on the Convention between the Member States on the crossing of their external borders.

    The European Council requests the Ministers with responsibility in this area to finalize agreement at their meeting on 1 July, taking as their model solutions adopted in the past with a view to overcoming the outstanding difficulty.

    The European Council asks the ad hoc Group on Immigration to put in hand without delay the measures necessary for this Convention to be effectively applied, with a view to adoption of those measures as soon as possible after the Convention enters into force. The European Council also instructs the ad hoc Group on Immigration to embark on discussions for a Convention on the protection of individuals in relation to the processing of personal data. Work on that Convention must be completed by 30 June 1992 at the latest.

    The European Council also records its agreement to the recommendations submitted by the Co-ordinators’ Group and requests that action should be taken on them as soon as possible.

    Regarding immigration and the right of asylum, the European Council has agreed on the objectives underlying the German delegation’s proposals as set forth in point B of Annex I and requests the Ministers with responsibility for immigration to submit proposals before the European Council’s next meeting in Maastricht.

    Drugs

    The European Council has taken note of the first report from by the relevant Committee (CELAD) on the implementation of the European Plan to combat drugs. It emphasizes in particular the importance of the recent adoption of Community legislation on money laundering.

    It approves the principle of setting up a European Drugs Monitoring Centre on the understanding that the practical arrangements for its implementation, e.g. its size, institutional structure and computer systems, are still to be discussed.

    The European Council instructs CELAD to continue work to that end and bring it rapidly to a successful conclusion, in liaison with the Commission and the other relevant political bodies.

    Regarding the fight against international drug trafficking and organized crime, the European Council has agreed on the objectives underlying the German delegation’s proposals as set forth in point B of Annex I and requests the Ministers with responsibility for drugs matters to submit proposals before the European Council’s next meeting in Maastricht.

    The European Council emphasizes the importance of ensuring that Community action is taken in close co-operation with the United Nations Plan for combating drugs.

    External Relations

    At a time when arrangements for its internal reinforcement are under debate in two Conferences, the Community wishes to reaffirm its determination to play an active and open role externally and seek close co-operation with all other international partners, whether bilaterally or multilaterally.

    USSR

    1. The European Council heard the Commission report on the situation in the Soviet Union and specifically on the implementation of the guidelines adopted in Rome on 14 and 15 December 1990. It noted with satisfaction that the necessary decisions have now been adopted for granting food aid amounting to ECU 750 million. Food deliveries have begun.

    With regard to technical assistance, the figure for the 1991 programme (ECU 400 million) and the implementing arrangements with the Soviet authorities have been adopted.

    1. The European Council fully supports the endeavours of the President and the Government of the Soviet Union to accelerate the reforms undertaken and to ease the Soviet Union’s integration into the world economy. It considers that a substantial programme for reorganizing and modernizing the economy is necessary.
    2. Economic and financial co-operation between the USSR and the Community is intended to foster this process. The Community is ready to continue contributing to this venture in the framework of concerted international action. In this context, the European Council requests the Commission to put forward proposals on the amount of technical assistance in 1992.

    The European Council refers to the wish it formulated at its Rome meeting to see the USSR assume its place in international financial institutions. With regard to the EBRD, the European Council reiterates its desire for a revision of the current provisions which restrict the possibility of loans to the Soviet Union.

    1. The European Council invites the Commission – by extension to its Rome II conclusions – to begin exploratory talks on a major agreement between the Community and the USSR covering not only economic questions but political and cultural matters as well.

    European Energy Charter

    The European Council also noted with satisfaction that the proceedings of the negotiating conference for the preparation of a European Energy Charter would open in Brussels on 15 July 1991 with the aim of adopting, by December 1991, a Charter instituting long-term European co-operation in the energy sectors on the basis of equal rights and obligations for the signatory countries.

    Uruguay Round

    The European Council considers the Uruguay Round to be the first priority in international economic relations, and stresses the importance of concluding these negotiations before the end of this year.

    If a balanced agreement covering all areas is to be reached within that period, important policy decisions will have to be taken without delay.

    The European Council calls on the Council and the Commission in its capacity as negotiator to continue their efforts to enable the Uruguay Round to come to a satisfactory conclusion.

    European Economic Area

    The European Council considers that the creation of a European Economic Area is an important component of the future structure of Europe.

    It welcomes the recent decisive progress and fully endorses the two parties’ commitment to overcome the remaining obstacles before 1 August, which would enable the agreement to enter into force on 1 January 1993.

    Central and Eastern Europe

    The European Council welcomes the progress towards political and economic reform in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. It recognizes the positive role played by members of G24 in underpinning structural adjustment and democracy and asks all sides to play a full part in that endeavour. The European Council reaffirms its determination to strengthen the Community’s links with these countries. It notes with satisfaction the progress achieved to date in the negotiations on Association Agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and hopes that these negotiations will culminate in the conclusion of overall agreements before the end of October 1991.

    The European Council hopes that conditions permitting reinforcement of the links between the Community and the Balkan countries will soon obtain.

    Situation in Yugoslavia

    The European Council examined the course of developments in Yugoslavia. It heard a report from the Ministerial Troika on its return from Belgrade and Zaghreb and expressed satisfaction at the results of this mission. However, the European Council remains concerned about the situation in this country and requests the relevant organs of European co-operation to remain seized of this situation and to follow developments closely.

    It took note of the fact that Luxembourg has invoked the emergency mechanism in the CSCE framework in view of the extreme gravity of the situation in Yugoslavia.

    Baltic States

    The European Council expresses its deep concern at the continued acts of intimidation and violence which have taken place in the Baltic States since the events in January, most recently in Vilnius on 26 June.

    The European Council urges the Soviet authorities to put a stop to all such arts and activities, and to ensure that those that have already taken place are fully and impartially investigated. It notes with satisfaction the recent statement of the Soviet President to this effect.

    The European Council against appeals for serious negotiations to be engaged between the Soviet authorities and the three Baltic States with a view to finding a solution which will fulfil the legitimate aspirations of the Baltic peoples.

    Middle East

    The European Council examined the state of play on the Middle East peace process and adopted the declaration in Annex II.

    It discussed the situation in Iraq and adopted the declaration in Annex III.

    Western Sahara

    The European Council noted with satisfaction the progress made in the process of self-determination of Western Sahara, in particular the adoption by the Security Council and the General Assembly of the Secretary-General’s report, as well as the setting up of the UN Mission for the referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). The Community and its Member States will assist in the implementation of the process that is under way.

    The European Council reiterates its support for the persistent efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and his special representative to ensure that the process goes forward smoothly.

    Algeria

    At the initiative of France, the European Council took note of the situation in Algeria and of the Algerian authorities’ request for Community support. It decided on the principle of balance of payments aid, its amount and the arrangements to be settled, on a proposal from the Commission, at the next meeting of the ECOFIN Council.

    Relations with developing countries

    The European Council is determined that the Community should play its full role in improving the economic and social situation of the developing countries. Lome IV, which is due to come into force very soon, and the new assistance and economic co-operation programmes in Asia, Latin America and the Mediterranean countries mark the opening of a new era. The European Council reaffirms its conviction that certain aspects with an important bearing on these relations, such as broader-based democracy, respect for human rights, and economic reform, are bound to develop further.

    Relations with the United States, Canada and Japan

    The relations of the Community and its Member States with the United States and with Canada, which are developing on the basis of the joint declarations signed in November 1990, will continue to play a crucial role in the prosperity and security of the Western world.

    With the same considerations in mind, the European Community wishes to strengthen its links with Japan on the basis of a similar declaration.

    Southern Africa

    The European Council examined the positive developments in South Africa and adopted the declaration in Annex IV.

    The European Council welcomes the South African Government’s decision to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it considers an important contribution to the stability of the region and to the strengthening of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

    The European Council welcomes the positive outcome of the negotiations concerning the peace process and democratisation in Angola and expresses its appreciation for the mediation carried out by Portugal.

    It also hopes that the talks taking place in Rome, under Italian auspices, will lead to an early peaceful settlement of the conflict in Mozambique.

    Human Rights

    The European Council adopted the declaration in Annex V, which should guide the future work of the Community and its Member States.

    Improvement of emergency assistance

    The European Council adopted the declaration in Annex VI.

    Non-proliferation and arms exports

    The European Council adopted the declaration in Annex VII.

    Tropical forests

    The European Council notes with pleasure that the Commission, pursuant to the conclusions of the Dublin European Council, has submitted a proposal, prepared together with the World Bank and in consultation with the Brazilian authorities, on a large-scale pilot project for the preservation of the tropical forest.

    The European Council supports the broad thrust of the project and confirms that the Community’s contribution to the preliminary stage will be US $15 million in financial support, to which contributions from the Member States will be added. It requests the other participants in the London Economic Summit to confirm that they too will contribute.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference at Luxembourg European Council – 29 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference, held in Luxembourg on 29th June 1991.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (John Palmer):

    Prime Minister, on political union, can we take it that what you have said implies that your objection to any extension of qualified majority voting and Parliamentary co-decision save for the environment for example remains an issue of principle; and secondly, I think you said about federalism that most other member states were clear that it meant decentralisation, not centralisation. Can you tell us who you think means by federalism centralisation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you had better ask that of our colleagues, they must answer for themselves and I will answer for me. On the earlier point on qualified majority voting we are still very reserved about how much additional qualified majority voting would be acceptable and co-decision in principle is not something we find at all attractive. There are areas where we can extend the powers of the European Parliament but we are not generally attracted to a legislative role for it.

    QUESTION (Alistair Campbell, Daily Mirror):

    Has it crossed your mind that the initials for ever closer union – ecu – might fit in with if not being tied to federalism certainly being tied to a single currency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is intriguing you should say that, Alistair, no I had not.

    QUESTION:

    Your meeting with Mr Haughey, what did you discuss and was the question of an accelerated strand 1 procedure discussed and the idea of moving to the strand 2 with the Dublin government involved?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That was not discussed, we were essentially discussing European matters in the discussion we had today, we touched upon the present situation of the talks but the talks are continuing in Strand I and we had no proposals to alter the present direction or pace of them.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Telegraph):

    In view of the reserve that you have now placed on EMU are you opposed to the setting of dates for moves to a single currency or not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not a new reserve on EMU, this is the reserve on the principle of the single currency that we have had for some time. There was nothing fresh or new, it was simply a reiteration of the position that existed some time ago and it was expressed so there was no doubt and no misunderstanding in anyone’s mind. So there is nothing new about the reserve.

    As for the dates, I have made it clear for some time that there are two important factors in any progress towards economic and monetary union. It is perfectly acceptable for dates to be set for progress to Stage 2 and Stage 3, but they can only be indicative dates, they cannot be rigid, fixed and firm dates, they can only be indicative and on the basis that the right level of convergence of the economies has been reached. If one were to go forward without such convergence then you would face very real economic difficulties indeed and some member states I think would face such economic difficulties that they would face truly horrendous problems.

    So for us the dates are much less important than the principles and necessity for convergence and at the moment we still maintain our reserve on the principle of the single currency.

    JOHN COLE (BBC):

    Prime Minister, in an earlier draft we saw there was no reference to dates and we were given to understand by some of your colleagues that the prolonged session was an argument as to how that came about. For those who have not seen the final conclusions could you explain what happened?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you think the whole session was taken up in discussing economic and monetary union I can assure there were other matters of some communal interest that took quite a lot of tine as well so it was not all on the subject of economic and monetary union.

    There were a number of earlier drafts; I don’t know which one you may have seen; the drafts are prepared by officials, they go forward, they are refined and eventually the Presidency lays one before colleagues and that is agreed or amended.

    There were a number of important matters and there were amendments made in many parts of the draft laid before us but without seeing the early draft that you have in mind, it is difficult to be precise on the points you raise.

    JOHN COLE:

    But are dates in now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. There are no firm dates in the Conclusions that we have agreed today. There are no firm dates for the progress to economic and monetary union.

    JOHN COLE:

    Not even a reference back to Rome 1?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a reference back to Rome 1 and Rome 2 with the reserve that we expressed at the time of Rome 1 and Rome 2 there is no fresh and separate reiteration of the dates. The reserve, of course, was Rome 1 only, not Rome 2.

    PHILIP STEVENS (FINANCIAL TIMES):

    Why do you think it is, Prime Minister, that the rather sort of friendly, sober discussion of these issues that you spoke about at the Council does not seem to be possible to replicate in the House of Commons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Philip, you should attend the House of Commons more often – it is very friendly and relaxed! It is a serious answer.

    QUESTION:

    From an earlier draft which we saw, there was talk of incorporating into a treaty the point put forward by Chancellor Kohl about a common immigration and asylum policy and one or two other matters in that light. Is that something which has survived? What are your thoughts on it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There ought to be no misunderstanding about precisely what was discussed there. There are two related points:

    There is a considerable degree of economic migrancy from East to West and from South to North and I think the expectation is that that may well continue in years to come. The United Kingdom expressed a view that was endorsed by a large number of countries – indeed I think no-one dissented – that we needed stronger perimeter fencing against that economic migrancy and we are examining that. That may well result in a treaty but it would probably be a treaty outside the Treaty of Rome but within the Union Treaty.

    JUDITH DAWSON (SKY NEWS):

    I wonder if I could ask you to characterise the discussions, particularly on the question of federalism and the question of a single currency? Would you say there were spirited exchanges?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There was very little discussion of the term “federal union”. That is in the chapeau at the moment but it was not a matter that was the subject of any great discussion at all. When we were discussing the Political Union IGC yesterday, I expressed my views on federal union; I said it was not an acceptable term to us and we would expect to see it removed before we had a treaty that we would be in a position to sign. Other colleagues around the table expressed the view that it was true that “federal” had more than one meaning. For example, Judith, if you were to look at the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, you would find five different meanings of “federal union”; if you were to look at the Longer Oxford Dictionary you might even find more; and if you were to look at a dictionary in any other language of the Community, Heaven alone knows how many illustration of that you would find, so that was accepted and there was not a great deal of discussion about it.

    There was not a great deal of discussion about the single currency. There was some discussion about how we framed the Declaration, that is true, but the economic and monetary union discussion was a round-table discussion last evening in which views were particularly invited upon the staging to Stage 2 and Stage 3 and other matters of principle but it was not a particularly extended discussion – it lasted perhaps an hour and a half.

    GERRY FOLEY (TV.AM):

    Prime Minister, you said that with a little bit of goodwill and good luck there was every possibility that you would be able to, all twelve, sign a treaty in December. Where do you see the greatest possibility for compromise and how would you sum up the nature of the negotiations that Britain is going to face over the next couple of months?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think, Gerry, that depends on compromise by whom. Based on the discussions that we have had over the past few days, I think there is no-one in the Community who will not have to compromise in some regard if we are going to successfully get agreement and that is true in most of the principal areas under discussion. It is not the case that all the particular difficulties concentrate in a particular area. The closer you get to it in the substructure, there are all sorts of difficulties for other nations so it will be a tremendous job for the Dutch Presidency; they will have a very large job to do between now and December but I think it is in good hands with the Dutch and I think that there is a considerable will amongst European Community partners to try and reach an agreement.

    ROBIN OAKLEY (THE TIMES):

    Prime Minister, you say that you will never sign a treaty including references to federal union. Does the same apply to any treaty giving the European Parliament power to initiate legislation in any field and could I ask you secondly whether there was much comment on the change of style and tone in Europe since you became Prime Minister? Can you point to any practical concession that you feel you have made as an evidence of your eagerness to put Britain at the heart of Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The European Parliament can call for legislation now and I think there are areas where it is appropriate to increase the powers of the European Parliament and I spoke of some of those earlier. Other partners in the Community have other suggestions as to where those powers can be increased so I think there will be changes in the way in which the European Parliament operates but I would not myself expect that they are going to involve substantial initiation of legislation powers.

    As to the second half of the question in terms of putting Britain right in the centre of Europe, I think the mark of a good European is a country that will put itself in the middle of the debate and argue for what it sees as the right way ahead for Europe, not necessarily argue for the consensus that previously existed and what I am doing and will continue to do is to argue for what I think is the right future for Europe in both the medium and the long term and that does mean we have to look not just at the deepening of relationship between the existing Community structures but that in bringing about that deepening we don’t throw such a girdle around the Community that we prevent its widening at a future stage. That is what I mean by being a good European.

    The other illustration perhaps I may give is this: it is not possible in a partnership of at present twelve and in the future more, always on each and every point to win the argument and have the result go precisely as you would wish it to. Sometimes you will win and you will gain something that your partners don’t wish to surrender; sometimes you will have to surrender something that your partners wish to gain that you don’t wish to give up. That is a matter of negotiation and that repeatedly has happened in the Community; it will happen again in the Community; there is nothing fresh about it but equally, there is nothing fresh about the fact that upon some subjects there will be a national reserve of such importance that the nation concerned will not be able to move and as in the past it will be so in the future – the partners of that nation, I believe, will understand that.

    QUESTION (THE OBSERVER):

    Could you tell me exactly how likely now you think it is that Britain will be able to sign up at the end of the year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I see no reason to suppose at the end of this European Council that it is any further away than it was when we came to this European Council. We have made a good deal of progress over the last few months. In particular, many of the matters that we particularly wished to be discussed have now come very much to the front of the Community’s collective minds: convergence, for example, in terms of economic and monetary union springs immediately to mind, we are by no means the only nation in the Community who have reservations on the scale of co-decision that was set out in the Presidency’s text, so as we move forward the areas of difference that are apparent narrow. That has been the way the Community has always operated and I think it is operating in that way now. There is a natural process that pulls partners together as you get nearer the dates by which a conclusion must be reached. That is starting but six months is a long time in the life of the Community – it still has some way to go. I am optimistic.

    BORIS JOHNSON (DAILY TELEGRAPH):

    Did the Government push for anything to be included in the communique about the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which after all represents the preponderant part of Community spending and if not, why not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We were predominantly discussing the Inter-Governmental Conferences; there were many Community matters that we did not particularly discuss yesterday and today. The question of GATT was discussed and that has a clear relationship to the Common Agricultural Policy. There is, I think, a growing view in the Community now, if not perhaps entirely general, that we will need to reform the Common Agricultural Policy yet again; there is absolutely no doubt about that. It was not necessary for me to restate it or for others to include it particularly. If we had all included everything that isn’t in this communique that might have been, I daresay the communique would have been two or three times as long as it is, but it was not a subject of substantial discussion; it was not on the agenda this week-end and therefore it is not included in the communique.

    BORIS JOHNSON:

    Do you think there is a case for a special Summit to discuss it, Prime Minister, in view of the importance of the issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly would not rule out a meeting at some stage but I think it is premature to say that we would have a special Summit to discuss it. There are some proposals that the Agricultural commissioner has produced; I believe some nations, not the British as it happens, have expressed reservations about these fresh proposals that have been published. They will need to be discussed by Agriculture Ministers in the first instance and then it may be they will need to be discussed by others but I think we had better let our Agriculture Ministers look at it first.

    JOHN McINTYRE:

    On the Social Charter, an earlier text that we saw suggested something much more friendly to the British than we might have expected. Do you believe that you have made some progress on this issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is some misunderstanding of the British view about the social dimension of the Community. There is a social dimension to the Community and under the broad Social Action Programme I think there are round about 50 different Directives that are important – a number of them have already been agreed. There are some that are not agreed and that it will be very difficult to agree but the reason it will be difficult to agree I think is one that will be understood throughout the whole Community.

    What is the prime purpose of the Social Action Programme? It must be, I believe, to increase the levels of employment and diminish the levels of unemployment and the areas of greatest controversy in the Social Action Programme are those where on practical economic grounds we believe that what is proposed would work in the reverse direction and cost jobs and not create jobs.

    If I may refer to my answer some moments ago to Robin Oakley, I think it is right to argue for what is in the interests of the Community, not what happens at any one time to be a consensus view in the Community and upon that basis I will continue to argue against those parts of the Social Action Programme that I think are damaging to Europe.

  • Mr Major’s Statement at Luxembourg European Council – 29 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement at the Luxembourg European Council meeting on 29th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have seen again with this Council the Community’s capacity to act in agreement at the time of an international crisis. In April we took a decision to set up safe havens in Iraq, yesterday we decided to put Yugoslavia at the top of our agenda. As you all know, the Troika returned here this morning and reported to us. We have invoked the emergency procedures of the CSCE to provide a framework in which dialogue can take place but the situation in Yugoslavia is and remains very fragile indeed.

    Jacques Santer has provided excellent chairmanship throughout this meeting, as indeed have he and his Luxembourg colleagues throughout the six months of what I believe can be seen as a very successful Presidency. A great deal of progress has been made, made in both the inter-governmental conferences and the careful preparation for this particular meeting has clearly paid off. Prime Minister Santer has himself visited London twice and in preparation for this Council I had preliminary meetings, substantial preliminary meetings with President Mitterrand. Chancellor Kohl, Mr Lubbers, Sr Gonzales, Mr Haughey, as well as conversations with other colleagues. And I saw both Mr Lubbers and Chancellor Kohl again yesterday morning.

    This European Council was a stock-taking European Council. It was not the occasion to take decisions but we have registered the very considerable progress made in the Luxembourg Presidency and we are all aiming to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December.

    The text of the conclusions, which I imagine you will now have seen, incorporates a number of points of importance to the United Kingdom. Firstly, I made clear that I welcomed the structure of the present draft of the treaty, that is to say the three pillared approach which means that some things are done on the basis of Community treaties and others on the basis of intergovernmental action outside the Treaty of Rome and the competence of the Commission, but within the framework of the union.

    I welcomed also the concept of a common foreign and security policy set firmly in the context of the Atlantic Alliance. There is also agreement on the preparation of proposals to improve the implementation of Community law and that reflects particularly a British proposal, a proposal that will enable the European Court of Justice to fine member states who fail to comply with Community legislation. We have argued for a long time for a level playing field and for full respect of the rule of law and we are determined to get it in this treaty.

    The conclusions also give new impetus to the single market which has always been a very high priority for us. They cover issues such as insurance, air, sea and road transport. They also contain in the conclusions a very strong reference to strengthening the Community’s links with the countries of central and Eastern Europe.

    I made perfectly clear in our discussions that there were things in the present draft treaty with which I could not agree and it was understood that nothing can be agreed until everything is agreed, hopefully by the time we have concluded our meeting at Maastricht in December.
    On the political union IGC I explained that federal union was a term capable of misunderstanding. We will insist on its removal before we are able to sign any treaty in December. Most of our partners interpret it as decentralisation rather than centralisation but in any treaty we have to be clear what we mean. It would therefore be far better to use the term in the original Treaty of Rome – ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.

    We looked in depth in our discussions at the role of the European Parliament. I explained our view that there are a number of areas where the authority of the European Parliament should be increased, including audit of expenditure, control over the Commission and the appointment of a European ombudsman. But I said that the present proposals for co-decision about the European Parliament were not proposals that we could accept. Apart from the basic issue of whether or not we want co-decision, the complicated conciliation procedures in the present Presidency text are not a way of giving the European Parliament a satisfactory role or of improving Community decision-taking. All that will have to be looked at further in detail before we get to Maastricht.

    In the discussion on economic and monetary union, I made it clear that we still wish to maintain our firm reserve on a single currency and a single central bank. We need to be clear about the importance of economic convergence before any of us could take the considerable economic risk of moving either to Stage 2 or to Stage 3. And I again explained that one of the advantages of Britain’s proposal for a hard Ecu is that it would allow that convergence to take place and for a single currency to emerge because it made economic sense, not regardless of whether it made economic sense. So the issue of hardening the Ecu is a very current one and will be pursued further in ECOFIN.

    The Council has agreed a text on human rights, a British initiative, and the first such declaration ever adopted by the European Council. That text affirms our determination to use the community’s influence to promote human rights through the economic and cooperation agreements that we make as a Community with third countries. We welcomed also in the declaration the abolition in South Africa of the Land Acts, the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act and have declared our support for the renewal of sporting links with South Africa on a case by case basis where unified and non-racial sporting bodies have been established. We have also welcomed South Africa’s adherence of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a significant gain for which we have been working for some time.

    We have also condemned the attempt by Iraq not to reveal nuclear equipment held by Iraq and which has to be removed under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. The Community has also endorsed a British and German initiative to improve the coordination of disaster relief within the United Nations system. I think this is an important initiative, it would involve the appointment of a high level coordinator who would pull together the whole disaster relief operation and have direct access to emergency funding.

    Our discussion has also looked forward to the Economic Summit which I will be chairing in London in a fortnight’s time. We have urged a conclusion in the GATT round before the end of this year, we have given an impetus to non-proliferation of weapons of all kinds, the Council endorsed also an initiative which I took in April to establish a United Nations register of conventional arms transfers and we will together table a draft resolution on this at the UN General Assembly. Over the dinner we had last evening, we discussed our approach to President Gorbachev’s visit to London. Both in our analysis of what is happening in the Soviet Union and in our assessment of what we can do to help, our positions in the Community are very close.

    I believe in summary that this European Council has shown the Community working as it should, we faced up to the crisis in Yugoslavia, we have dealt with our own business in a friendly and businesslike way, looking for solutions. I have no doubt there are still difficult negotiations to come but I think the Dutch will start their Presidency knowing that everyone in the Community wants to reach agreement by the end of the year. With good luck and goodwill I hope and believe that can be done.

  • Mr Major’s Statement at Luxembourg European Council – 29 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement at the Luxembourg European Council meeting on 29th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have seen again with this Council the Community’s capacity to act in agreement at the time of an international crisis. In April we took a decision to set up safe havens in Iraq, yesterday we decided to put Yugoslavia at the top of our agenda. As you all know, the Troika returned here this morning and reported to us. We have invoked the emergency procedures of the CSCE to provide a framework in which dialogue can take place but the situation in Yugoslavia is and remains very fragile indeed.

    Jacques Santer has provided excellent chairmanship throughout this meeting, as indeed have he and his Luxembourg colleagues throughout the six months of what I believe can be seen as a very successful Presidency. A great deal of progress has been made, made in both the inter-governmental conferences and the careful preparation for this particular meeting has clearly paid off. Prime Minister Santer has himself visited London twice and in preparation for this Council I had preliminary meetings, substantial preliminary meetings with President Mitterrand. Chancellor Kohl, Mr Lubbers, Sr Gonzales, Mr Haughey, as well as conversations with other colleagues. And I saw both Mr Lubbers and Chancellor Kohl again yesterday morning.

    This European Council was a stock-taking European Council. It was not the occasion to take decisions but we have registered the very considerable progress made in the Luxembourg Presidency and we are all aiming to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December.

    The text of the conclusions, which I imagine you will now have seen, incorporates a number of points of importance to the United Kingdom. Firstly, I made clear that I welcomed the structure of the present draft of the treaty, that is to say the three pillared approach which means that some things are done on the basis of Community treaties and others on the basis of intergovernmental action outside the Treaty of Rome and the competence of the Commission, but within the framework of the union.

    I welcomed also the concept of a common foreign and security policy set firmly in the context of the Atlantic Alliance. There is also agreement on the preparation of proposals to improve the implementation of Community law and that reflects particularly a British proposal, a proposal that will enable the European Court of Justice to fine member states who fail to comply with Community legislation. We have argued for a long time for a level playing field and for full respect of the rule of law and we are determined to get it in this treaty.

    The conclusions also give new impetus to the single market which has always been a very high priority for us. They cover issues such as insurance, air, sea and road transport. They also contain in the conclusions a very strong reference to strengthening the Community’s links with the countries of central and Eastern Europe.

    I made perfectly clear in our discussions that there were things in the present draft treaty with which I could not agree and it was understood that nothing can be agreed until everything is agreed, hopefully by the time we have concluded our meeting at Maastricht in December.
    On the political union IGC I explained that federal union was a term capable of misunderstanding. We will insist on its removal before we are able to sign any treaty in December. Most of our partners interpret it as decentralisation rather than centralisation but in any treaty we have to be clear what we mean. It would therefore be far better to use the term in the original Treaty of Rome – ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.

    We looked in depth in our discussions at the role of the European Parliament. I explained our view that there are a number of areas where the authority of the European Parliament should be increased, including audit of expenditure, control over the Commission and the appointment of a European ombudsman. But I said that the present proposals for co-decision about the European Parliament were not proposals that we could accept. Apart from the basic issue of whether or not we want co-decision, the complicated conciliation procedures in the present Presidency text are not a way of giving the European Parliament a satisfactory role or of improving Community decision-taking. All that will have to be looked at further in detail before we get to Maastricht.

    In the discussion on economic and monetary union, I made it clear that we still wish to maintain our firm reserve on a single currency and a single central bank. We need to be clear about the importance of economic convergence before any of us could take the considerable economic risk of moving either to Stage 2 or to Stage 3. And I again explained that one of the advantages of Britain’s proposal for a hard Ecu is that it would allow that convergence to take place and for a single currency to emerge because it made economic sense, not regardless of whether it made economic sense. So the issue of hardening the Ecu is a very current one and will be pursued further in ECOFIN.

    The Council has agreed a text on human rights, a British initiative, and the first such declaration ever adopted by the European Council. That text affirms our determination to use the community’s influence to promote human rights through the economic and cooperation agreements that we make as a Community with third countries. We welcomed also in the declaration the abolition in South Africa of the Land Acts, the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act and have declared our support for the renewal of sporting links with South Africa on a case by case basis where unified and non-racial sporting bodies have been established. We have also welcomed South Africa’s adherence of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a significant gain for which we have been working for some time.

    We have also condemned the attempt by Iraq not to reveal nuclear equipment held by Iraq and which has to be removed under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. The Community has also endorsed a British and German initiative to improve the coordination of disaster relief within the United Nations system. I think this is an important initiative, it would involve the appointment of a high level coordinator who would pull together the whole disaster relief operation and have direct access to emergency funding.

    Our discussion has also looked forward to the Economic Summit which I will be chairing in London in a fortnight’s time. We have urged a conclusion in the GATT round before the end of this year, we have given an impetus to non-proliferation of weapons of all kinds, the Council endorsed also an initiative which I took in April to establish a United Nations register of conventional arms transfers and we will together table a draft resolution on this at the UN General Assembly. Over the dinner we had last evening, we discussed our approach to President Gorbachev’s visit to London. Both in our analysis of what is happening in the Soviet Union and in our assessment of what we can do to help, our positions in the Community are very close.

    I believe in summary that this European Council has shown the Community working as it should, we faced up to the crisis in Yugoslavia, we have dealt with our own business in a friendly and businesslike way, looking for solutions. I have no doubt there are still difficult negotiations to come but I think the Dutch will start their Presidency knowing that everyone in the Community wants to reach agreement by the end of the year. With good luck and goodwill I hope and believe that can be done.

  • PMQT – 27 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

    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 have further meetings later today. This evening I shall depart for Luxembourg for the European Council meeting tomorrow.

    Sir Michael Neubert : Does my right hon. Friend agree that a vast expansion of the Common Market regional fund would do little or nothing to bring about a convergence of the European economies, but would merely make the poorer parts of the Community dependent on hand-outs from Brussels? Is he able to say how much such a proposal, which is supported by the Labour party, would cost the average British family?

    The Prime Minister : I am not able to give my hon. Friend a costing on that, because it would depend on the scale of the funds transferred from north to south, but I can confirm that expanding regional funds would certainly involve increased taxation in this country and in a number of other northern countries. The only credible way to bring about economic convergence is control of inflation and the right economic policies.

    Mr. Kinnock : In view of the fact that the Bundesbank decided today not to raise German interest rates, does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time to cut British interest rates?

    The Prime Minister : That is an odd question from the right hon. Gentleman, when the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said only last Thursday :

    “we will not be using interest rates for controlling demand.”

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister should try to answer a very basic question–especially since every responsible organisation and person concerned with the fate of British industry and British home buyers is calling for a reduction in interest rates. Did the Prime Minister read the reports published earlier this week from Shelter and the Council of Mortgage Lenders, stating that repossessions are at a record high, that hundreds of thousands of families are in deep mortgage arrears and that, in the words of the council’s director, “Worse is yet to come”?

    The Prime Minister’s policies are hitting every class of people and every corner of the country–[ Hon. Members :– “Speech.”] Yes–on behalf of every mortgage payer in Britain. How can the Prime Minister justify continuing with policies that punish the British people for the failure of his own policy?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that, because we have succeeded in reducing inflation and have moved prudently, we have been able to cut interest rates five times, by a total of 3.5 per cent., without risking an inflationary devaluation in the exchange rate mechanism. That has meant about £50 a month off the average mortgage for mortgage holders.

    Mr. Kinnock : Unemployment is rising, firms are closing and the recovery about which we have heard so much is now going to take longer and be much slower than anything the Prime Minister has promised. How many more homes and how many more enterprises must be lost before the right hon. Gentleman stops pushing the country further into a slump?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should return to the real world and recognise the commitments that he made when he committed himself to the fact that the exchange rate mechanism was the right policy. On the one hand, the right hon. Gentleman wants to say that it is right to have exchange rate stability, but on the other he makes the inconsistent claim that he wishes to reduce interest rates whenever he finds it convenient to do so.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Mrs. Gorman : When my right hon. Friend goes to speak to the women’s Conservative conference later this afternoon will he bear it in mind that its delegates are delighted with the measures that the Government have been taking to improve the lot of women? The steps that we have taken include flexible working hours, more flexible nursery arrangements and better tax arrangements. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government continue to acknowledge the great contribution that women make to this country, not least by increasing women’s representation in the honours list —

    [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. We do not refer to the honours list in the Chamber.

    Mrs. Gorman : Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister realise that, in recommending women in this country for honours he assures the women of Britain that the Tory party is a girl’s best friend?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, the vast range of policies that we have followed in the past few years clearly shows the importance that we give to the contribution made by women to this country. We shall continue to promote such policies.

     

    Q3. Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Mr. Mitchell : As the Prime Minister struggles to get his deck-chair up in a busy day of deck-chair wrestling, will he think about this week’s trade figures, which show a large and increasing deficit? Can he cite any country which, when in the depths of a recession, showed an increasing balance of payments deficit?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman should know, first, the trade deficit is on an improving trend and secondly, the underlying export volumes in the quarter to May were at an all-time high–3 per cent. up on the previous quarter and double the rise in import volumes.

     

    Q4. Mr. Mans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Mr. Mans : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is Conservative policies of competitive tendering, housing action trusts and the abolition of the national dock labour scheme that are coming to the aid of the city of Liverpool and clearing up the mess that successive Labour and Liberal administrations have inflicted on that city?

    The Prime Minister : Conservative legislation certainly offers Liverpool a much better deal. What has happened to Liverpool has been because it followed Labour policies for so long–often, I fear, with the assistance of the Liberal party. The effects of that can be seen by everyone in Liverpool and beyond.

     

    Q5. Mr. Morley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Mr. Morley : What hope can the Prime Minister give to constituents who work for as little as £1.70 per hour? Why is it that under the Government boardroom fat cats like the chairman of Wessex Water have had their salaries increased from £47,000 to £100,000 per year while the charges for consumers have increased by 28 per cent? Is Majorism simply extortion by the few and exploitation of the many?

    The Prime Minister : A few days ago I made perfectly clear my opinions of people who provide themselves with undesirably large increases. As for people on very low incomes, a minimum wage would leave them with no income but unemployment.

    Mr. Peter Griffiths : Has my right hon. Friend had time today to note the report in the press of a Nottinghamshire miner who earned £35,000 last year, being among the one in three in that area who earned more than £20,000 last year, much to the credit of the miners, their union and their work rate? What would be the effect on that miner’s take-home pay if the Labour party’s spending plans were put into practice?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly aware of the very high earnings of many Nottinghamshire miners, which I welcome. Much of that is the result of increased productivity, and it is well earned. It is unfortunate that those miners would face extra taxation as a result of their hard work and success if the Opposition’s tax policies were ever put into operation.

     

    Q6. Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Mr. Fatchett : Further to the Prime Minister’s reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the report in today’s issue of The Daily Telegraph that John Baker, the chief executive of National Power, has enjoyed an increase of £115,000 since 1 April, which is an 85 per cent. increase in his salary? The Prime Minister has condemned such increases. Will he use the powers in the Government’s prospectus for the sale of National Power and PowerGen, or is the right hon. Gentleman yet again all talk and no action?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should read the prospectus more carefully. It makes it perfectly clear that we have given an undertaking not to interfere in the commercial decisions of a company. It is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman thinks it a light matter to break the contract into which we have entered.

     

    Q7. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is widely accepted that minimum wage legislation would destroy upwards of 1 million jobs? Will he also confirm that such minimum wage legislation would have an impact upon the weakest in society–the disabled, the unskilled and the young, precisely those sectors of society which Labour professes to champion but which it is now so cynically betraying?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I think that the vast majority of people also agree with him. The latest staging post for the Opposition’s stance on this matter was set out rather hilariously in a letter this morning from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who said :

    “I have not accepted that the minimum wage will cost jobs … I have simply accepted that econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact”.

    Those words would make a weasel blush.

    Mr. Wigley : Is the Prime Minister aware of the dismay in Wales last week when the Government published their Green Paper on the future structures of government? That dismay arose because there was nothing in the Green Paper about the all-Wales level of democracy, despite the fact that the Assembly of Welsh Counties, the Association of Welsh Districts and every political party in Wales except the Conservatives support that, and that three of the six Welsh Conservative Members also support such a policy. Will the Prime Minister look at this again to try to get some all- Wales democracy?

    The Prime Minister : I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, our policy has not been to go in the direction that he proposes. I shall examine and discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, but it is unlikely that we shall change our present posture.

     

    Q8. Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Mr. Bottomley : Will my right hon. Friend turn his mind to the fate of 12-year-old Maria and 10-year-old Anna Gordievsky? Will he continue to take every opportunity to make plain to the President of the USSR, to visiting Russian Members of Parliament and to the world’s press that one of the ways in which we shall judge the new USSR is whether the KGB will let those two young children come to Britain to join their father?

    The Prime Minister : I assure my hon. Friend that I have personally taken this matter up with President Gorbachev in the past. I shall do so again when next we meet, and the matter is frequently raised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary with his counterpart and at official level with the Soviet authorities.

    Mr. McMaster : Is the Prime Minister aware that in a recent answer to a parliamentary question, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibilities for industry, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), revealed that 76 per cent. of manufacturing jobs in the Paisley postcode area had been lost between 1979 and 1989? He will be aware that things have become far worse since. Does he agree that that is an unacceptable level of economic and social disaster, or does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is a price well worth paying?

    The Prime Minister : All levels of unemployment are a matter for distress and regret. The only way to ensure that we create jobs that are permanent and are sustained is to have the right economic policies to get inflation down, and to keep it down. There is no other way of ensuring job security for the future. It may sometimes be difficult and uncomfortable, but it is the right policy, and it is the policy to which we shall stick.

     

    Q9. Mr. Cash : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

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

    Mr. Cash : Does my right hon. Friend accept that he will go to the summit tomorrow with the good wishes and goodwill of all Conservative Members? Given the clearly expressed views of the House yesterday and his own views against the federal super-state, does he agree that the Opposition abdicated their national duty by dividing the House on the matter yesterday?

    The Prime Minister : I am always grateful to have my hon. Friend’s support on these matters. I agree about the irrelevance and irresponsibility of the position that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen took yesterday. It was adequately described in many national newspapers this morning.