The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1992

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Comments on VAT – 28 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on VAT, made outside Lancaster House on 28th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Chancellor reached a very good agreement yesterday on Value Added Tax. Valued Added Tax has been a Community tax since the Treaty of Rome. What happened yesterday was that the Chancellor secured our nil rates of VAT – that is vitally important. We secured a minimum rate of VAT which means we do not have to change our rates of tax at all – many other countries have to change their rates of tax. We also secured, as part of a general package, an extremely beneficial deal for Scotch whisky. It was a good day yesterday and I think it is a very satisfactory outcome from our point of view.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in London – 20 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, made in London on Monday 20th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am afraid I have one piece of news for you that you will not have been expecting, we will be playing cricket against our European Community partners and I have some confidence about the outcome.

    Let me say firstly how pleased I am to be here today to present those awards, I know how important they are, I know how hard they are to earn, I know what a remarkable tribute they are to those who actually receive them, and so it is a very special pleasure to be here today to have the opportunity of presenting them.

    I know for some businesses at the moment it is a difficult time, there have been difficult months and for some those difficult months continue. But I think that, if anything, makes it even more important to beat the drum for free enterprise. Free enterprise is the only way in which this country is going to have the strength, the importance, the economic and political authority that I wish it to have, and that point might as well be understood at the low point of an economic cycle as well as the high point of an economic cycle. For at the moment we need that enterprise more than ever.

    But I think the point is really wider than that. We will always need free enterprise, the risk-takers, the go-getters, the people with energy to beat down barriers, create profits, create wealth, create jobs, and I believe that no-one knows that or understands it better than Aims of Industry and I do congratulate you on celebrating your 50th anniversary of fighting for free enterprise.

    I had a Mr Cube childhood, I grew up with that remarkable advertisement for free enterprise, it is I believe a natural part of our heritage and I think you can be very proud indeed at what Mr Cube stood for and what Mr Cube achieved.

    And I think when one looks at free enterprise, considers what it stands for and what it means, no-one illustrates the merits of free enterprise better than the three award winners today whom I congratulate very warmly on their achievements and on their success.

    We talk of free enterprise, it is worth pausing for a moment to ask what it means, what does it imply, what does enterprise need to be free from? Two things, I believe, essentially. First it needs, and you touched upon this in your remarks a few moments ago, it needs to be free of unnecessary government intervention. We are continuing to cut red tape and remove barriers to enterprise, but I share your view, there is still much more to be done and I will return to that in a few moments. But business does need to be free to take macro-economic business decisions about products, costs, markets, investment, and only the private entrepreneur can take those decisions in the interests of their own companies. But second, and in some ways perhaps rather more important, it needs to be free of unpredictable macro-economic cycles. We have broken free in recent years of our corporatist past, not just the corporatism of government picking winners or second guessing the businessmen, we have broken free of the idea that if only government would sit down over beer and sandwiches with the captains of industry and unions to agree a macro-economic strategy, all would be well.

    Well it was not when we did that and it would not be if we tried it again. The old idea that with a bit of tweaking of the money supply here, a little fine tuning of interest rates there, a little bit of spending somewhere else, everything will come out all right and then if all else fails, a massive devaluation to bail us out of our mistakes and to solve our problems.

    Well I must say to you bluntly, it never did and it never will and it is not the way to run an economy. I do not mean in saying that to imply that government and industry have nothing to discuss, of course they do, a great deal to discuss, but it is extremely important to have that informal dialogue and constructive partnership between government and industry on a wide range of issues. And the announcement of a re-shaped Department of Trade and Industry is specifically intended to make sure that the Department relates more closely to sectors of industry and provides us with an appropriate structure. It is not a precursor of an interventionist future for there is going to be no interventionist future.

    We want to see British companies win in the market places of the world. Coming second means coming nowhere, if you are second in a contract you do not get the contract. Unless you come first you might as well not have bothered. And what we seek to do is to strengthen our importance as a great trading nation and I make no apology for the determination of the government to help in achieving that objective.

    Today I have the pleasure of presenting some awards. But I would win a far greater prize for free enterprise if I could raise your eyes and other people’s eyes for a moment to the future and a wider opportunity.

    Let me state as a fundamental fact that I believe we must have consistency of economic policy. Business has been asking for this for decades so let us be consistent. I make no secret of the fact that I believe the economic policy we are following is the right economic policy, we are in the Exchange Rate Mechanism and we are staying in the Exchange Rate Mechanism. And I believe that will bring a very considerable prize within our grasp, that is a stable macro-economy, low inflation, permanently low inflation with enterprise freed not just from petty regulations but from the fear that all your efforts might come to nothing if you lose a gamble on the inflationary cycle. I want inflation to cease to be a matter for discussion in company boardrooms. Stable prices should be given, they should be expected, they have been for many years in the economies of some of our major competitors. Business has a right to expect stable prices and government has a responsibility to seek to deliver those stable prices.

    We are now getting inflation down and we mean to keep inflation down, it is fundamental to the health of the economy, it is fundamental to the health of free enterprise, it is not easy, it is painful, it does take a while but it is absolutely essential that we win that particular battle.

    It is of course in the nature of free enterprise to take risks, but the risks should not be the risks of the roulette wheel, the risks that you take should be those of challenging your competition in a fair race and in that we have a considerable competitive edge. We have always had the best scientists, the best innovators and I believe the best businessmen.

    In the 1980s we dramatically improved our performance in quality, in design, in marketing and in cross-competitiveness. And so in any fair race that might put us, British commerce and industry, among the favourites to win. And in this country we will have the added advantage that the social chapter, with its unwise costs and its unnecessary interferences, will not apply to us as it does to our principal competitors in the European Community. And let me tell you why it does not apply to us, it does not apply to us because I had no intention of removing government from your backs at home to have it reimposed by the European Community in Brussels, whether it be the social chapter or some other unnecessary imposition of that sort.

    But a low inflation economy is going to bring responsibilities for business as well as opportunities, it means greater responsibility for businessmen. Government are not going to bale out inefficiency or poor control of costs and wages by devaluation. There will be no return to the competitive devaluations of the 1960s and the 1970s, I believe they did terrible damage to British industry in the process and I am not going to return to that sort of policy again.

    And that means in future we will have to adjust our costs to the exchange rate rather than the other way around. And by us I include not just the private sector but the public sector. It is essential that we keep public spending under tight control and we intend to do so.

    Now some pessimists, and you see them, read them, hear them day after day, some pessimists, defeatists, have argued that we will never shake off the old ways, they argue that our history and our national character means that Britain will never be as responsible in controlling wage settlements and costs as our competitors abroad. well I believe that is blatant nonsense and if one looks at what is happening now I believe I can illustrate that. Pay settlements are running at about 4 percent, the lowest for many years; unit wage costs in manufacturing are falling and productivity is rising; our exports are at record levels despite the recession which also suggests that the Exchange Rate is not uncompetitive; and trade deficit in the European Community fell from 11 billion in 1990 to 2 billion in 1992.

    The 1980s were a remarkable decade, they were a decade of dramatic supply side reform. Let me pick up the point that you made a few moments ago, Chairman. We have by no means finished those supply side reforms. The President of the Board of Trade will be stepping up the drive against regulation at home and as a key aim of our Presidency, again to pick up the point you made, we will be pushing for more deregulation in Brussels. We are not just looking at less regulation from Brussels in the future, we are also looking to see what existing regulation in Brussels can be removed and removed speedily in the weeks and the months ahead.

    And let me just turn to one other vital supply side reform, and I refer to education. In the case of education, we have only just begun our reforms. John Patten will shortly be publishing further proposals for reform, they will be radical, they will be controversial, but they will be in the very best interests of our children. we will build on parental choice with more opting out, we will take determined action to rescue children whose prospects are blighted in the worst synch schools so often sited in so many of our great cities. A free enterprise culture needs recruits with skills, discipline and enthusiasm, they are the vital ingredients for success and we are determined to continue with our existing education reforms and to build on those existing education reforms to ensure that the education system produces the raw material upon which business can fasten and that will give business the skills that it needs to improve the private enterprise culture in the future. And that does mean an essential concentration on basics. To read, to write, to add up is the very basics of education in the early years of education. It does mean for those who are traditionalists that in terms of study Neighbours are out and Shakespeare is back in, and I must say, I believe that is the right decision.

    Mr Chairman, just let me say a further word to the three winners today. It is not perhaps my responsibility today to detail the remarkable achievements that have led to this award, but I would say this to them. There was perhaps a time in the past when business and business leaders were anonymous, but I do not believe any longer that is the case. The best of our great businessmen in this country are role models, as well as being the leaders of their own businesses, people know far more about them than ever they did before with the glare of publicity that follows both big business and every other aspect of public life these days.

    So their success will not just be a pleasure to themselves, not just important to their families and their shareholders and the country, it actually is a clear illustration to millions and millions of young people out there who see a free enterprise future of what can be achieved with the right talent, the right gifts, the right aptitude, the right consistency, the right innovation and the right luck, and I congratulate them most warmly on what they have achieved for themselves and on the importance of their achievement for those millions of other people around this country.

    Mr Chairman, in conclusion let me just simply say this, and I return to a theme I touched upon a moment or so ago but it is one I feel passionately about. Today I am presenting awards to outstanding examples of what I would call supply side achievement. In the 1990s we aim to add the missing ingredient to the policies of the 1980s and that missing ingredient is an environment of permanently low inflation, that prize is now within our grasp, let no-one, Mr Chairman, be in any doubt whatsoever that the government are determined that we will take this opportunity and keep that low inflation for it is vital to our future success.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on West Country Tour – 17 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made during his West Country visit, on 17th July 1992, entitled “Our Common Inheritance”.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted to be in Cornwall today and able to speak to you.

    I want to talk firstly about the great heritage of the South West and then turn to how that affects the challenges you face to generate growth in the local economy while preserving the unique character of this part of England.

    To be successful the drive and energy for growth must come from local people. It cannot be imposed. Drive and energy is something about which TECs know a great deal. It is their job to work with Iocal agencies and organisations to create local training and enterprise programmes which reflect local needs.

    The TEC in Devon and Cornwall was one of the first to be launched. And with a budget of 60 million pounds a year, it is one of the largest in the country. It already involves industrialists, employing one third of the total workforce, as well as local authority, educational and other community leaders, from across the two counties. It is driving forward with ‘Investors in People’ – our new national standard for companies making a commitment for training. It is also one of the 11 TECs chosen to pilot the new training credits scheme. Under the able chairmanship of Eric Dancer, it is going from strength to strength. If the TEC movement is to succeed it will be because TECs like Devon and Cornwall lead the way.

    A predecessor of mine, Stanley Baldwin used to talk about ‘Our Common Inheritance’. He was right to do so. And we know that without the counties of the South West, that inheritance would have been infinitely poorer.

    The Romans called the South West ‘Britannia Prima’. They knew a thing or two! King Arthur and his Court are not just of local interest in Tintagel or Camelford. They became a national myth which inspired the people and pageantry of England over many centuries. And what would we have been without Raleigh, without Drake, Grenville, Hawkins, Frobisher and the rest – all great West Countrymen? Would we have beaten the Armada? Would we have founded an Empire? Would we be renowned as a ‘seafaring nation’? I doubt it.

    Their instincts are still prevalent in the West Country. That combination of a strong conservatism with fierce local independence. The West Country is a unique part of England – and uniquely English too – proud of local tradition, adventurous, sceptical and, dare I say it, sometimes downright eccentric and no-one could – or would wish to – change that.

    It is impossible to travel to the West Country and not feel proud of this country. Some people have an insatiable appetite for running Britain down. Day after day on subject after subject our opponents tell us that Britain is always wrong. That we will always be beaten. That others will prevail.

    Yet most people are proud of their country. We have the greatest literature, the richest history, the finest countryside, the best sporting tradition and the most brilliant scientists and inventors of any country in the world. I have no hesitation or embarrassment in saying this. It is true. I am determined to keep it that way.

    These things are not accidental. We have an open society. We have a society in which Government has not tried to impose its own blueprint on the development of individual talent or local culture. Within the Union we have nations which have kept their separate identity and counties and communities with different traditions. A strong feeling of local independence is what makes us a united Kingdom.

    A Living Heritage

    We take so much for granted. People from the New World come to the Old World to find their ‘roots’ and we find it amusing. Not so amusing are the hatreds of hundreds of years which are being relived with terrible bloodshed in Yugoslavia – in the old Soviet empire and South Africa. Our heritage matters. Look around you. Is it possible to find a country whose heritage of buildings, of countryside and literature speaks more eloquently of centuries of mainly peaceful change?

    Love of heritage is no mere nostalgia for a past that no longer exists. As events in Yugoslavia demonstrate all too well – it shapes our behaviour now. In our case our inheritance of social and political stability gives us an immense competitive advantage. It attracts investment from overseas. It means that we are better equipped than many to meet the challenges of innovation and change that are the key to economic success. The question of key contemporary economic importance to the West Country is – how do we build on these strengths?

    The South West Preserving the Old: Exploring the New

    The South West faces many challenges. Many of us – many of you – have been hit by the recession in world trade. Many of you are having to make adjustments – often painful adjustments as jobs are lost in traditional employment – in mining – in defence and agriculture and fishing.

    Your challenge – our challenge is threefold. It is to develop new businesses – new employment – without compromising the unique character of these counties. It is to help traditional industries to adjust to meet the needs of the 1990s. It’s to ensure that local people have access to high quality services – to housing, education, health and many other things.

    My engagements in Cornwall today demonstrate the breadth and strength of its contribution to our nation.

    My first visit was to a successful dry docks in Penzance where I saw many of the traditional Cornish skills which have supported the area’s offshore industry for so many generations. I then visited an excellent Infants and Junior School in Cambourne, where no-one could fail to be impressed by the dedication of the teachers and the pride in the quality of the education they are offering their pupils.

    This afternoon I will visit one of the county’s principle tourist attractions – an excellent example of how the tourist industry can operate in harmony rather than in opposition to the environment.

    Finally I shall be visiting a company who have made a success of one of Cornwall’s most many famous exports, the pasty. Each and every pasty is still hand-made.

    Tourism – Combining Heritage with Prosperity

    Tourism has been a major growth area though it too is suffering – temporarily – from world recession. Yet some people like to suggest that tourism is a ‘Cinderella’ industry – ephemeral – somehow less real than jobs in traditional manufacturing. Remember some countries, half as well favoured as ours – have built their wealth on tourism. And it is expected to become the world’s biggest industry by the year 2000. Tourism is vital to Cornwall. It is a long-term growth industry. It provides people with flexible employment and it contributes 25 billion pounds to our GDP.

    But to me it is more than that. To be successful in tourism we have to advertise ourselves. We show our pride in our heritage. We have to talk ourselves up, not run ourselves down. Tourism can help us cherish and maintain our heritage. It is a vital component in a local economy. It provides a second income for many farmers. They can diversify. They can continue the traditional patterns of farming which give the South West its unique character.

    Although we are committed to developing tourism, tourist development must not be allowed to destroy the environment people come to see. Development must be high quality. It must be sensitively planned by local councils. Not for us the coastal high rise of the Costas. Our Britain is a country of local character and living communities. It is not Disneyland.

    Above all development must be sustained by local commitment. Your heritage is in your hands.

    Fighting for Britain’s Farmers and Fisherman

    We are determined to protect the interests of Britain’s farmers and fishermen. These are difficult times for Britain’s fishermen, and I understand people’s concern. But the truth is if there are no fish there is no future for them. That is why it is so important to conserve fish stocks and that is why we are taking measures through Parliament to safeguard their future. I recognise people’s fears. But I hope they will wait to see how the new arrangements work in practice. I don’t think there is any fundamental disagreement that without effective conservation our fishermen’s very future will be put in jeopardy. I also recognise the importance of proper enforcement of fisheries regulations which must apply to all people fishing in the waters of the South West. I think our determined response to the incident off the Scilly Isles two weeks ago demonstrated our commitment.

    We are fighting equally hard for Britain’s farmers. John Gummer’s success in agreeing a reformed Common Agricultural Policy is a remarkable achievement. It’s good for Britain’s farmers because we succeeded in removing measures which would have put them at a disadvantage. And it recognises that farming and environmental protection go hand in hand. We are also building on our environmentally sensitive areas scheme where we have led the way in Europe. The ESA in West Penwith was of course one of the first areas to be designated in 1987. We remain determined to preserve the unique and diverse character of British farming – from the small family farms of the South West to the extensive hill farms of Scotland and the big arable farms in my part of the world.

    Helping Local Communities Remain ‘Viable’

    Preserving the character of an area also means helping local people to live in the area. You face particular difficulties. Cornwall is especially attractive to people wanting holiday homes and retirement homes. We cannot and should not prevent that. Our prosperity depends on freedom to own – freedom to move – freedom to buy and sell. But I quite understand and have great sympathy with the concerns of local people that traditional communities are threatened by newcomers – ‘Grockles’ I believe they are called, buying up homes in rural villages and making it difficult for local people to find homes in the communities in which they were born and brought up.

    Local Housing for Local Needs

    The answer must lie in new housing – modest developments to meet local needs without damage to the character of villages and countryside. I can think of no other area in which the ‘enabling’ role of councils – as planning authorities – is more important. Careful and sensitive planning can make the difference between life and death for rural communities and for services – for shops – for schools – for pubs and other services on which they depend.

    I say ‘modest’ development. We don’t want to see the open countryside scarred by unsuitable developments that change this character that both locals and visitors value.

    There must be close partnership between planners, housing authorities and housing providers: partnership with housing associations who are – with our support – now major providers of affordable housing: partnership with local communities and landowners to take advantage of our ‘exceptions’ scheme. The release of small sites exceptionally, which would otherwise not be available for housing, to meet local village needs is proving increasingly popular. It has already contributed to the salvation of many village communities.

    There must also be partnership with commercial developers using the planning system to get low-cost housing in market developments where it is needed. Negotiation with developers is a key to increasing private sector provision of affordable housing. And councils can use their own land for ‘build under licence’ schemes – the right to nominate purchasers in exchange for cheaper land.

    Providing enough housing for local needs is a big challenge for the 1990s. We will be successful where councils use their planning role creatively and involve local communities. There is no national blueprint. Nor should there be. Decisions should be local: for local needs and preserving local character.

    Better Local Services

    Giving back choice and responsibility to local people runs like a grain through all our policies for public services. It provides the underlying philosophy of our Citizen’s Charter.

    In education we are returning to basics. We are raising standards. Shakespeare is in. Neighbours is out. Parents now have choice. More schools are going grant maintained, running their own show. Local people can shape their schools to meet local needs. They may want schools that specialise – in technology or music for example – or perhaps in Cornwall in view of the importance of tourism, in business studies, or in local heritage and the local environment. They may wish to develop selective or part selective schools or encourage particular styles of teaching and organisation.

    In health care local GPs and hospitals have new opportunities to shape the services they offer to meet local needs. Not surprisingly, the independent spirits of the South West have already established 18 NHS Trusts and 20 GP fundholding practices. They are raising the quality of NHS service towards the high quality of its medical care for which it has always been renowned.

    Unity in Diversity

    The history of twentieth century teaches us one basic fact. Where central government and central administration takes too much away from people, where it tries to forge a national cohesion from the centre, it is undermined from beneath by the alienation of people whose rights are usurped.

    The character of our nation is the sum of the contribution which individuals and local communities have made over many centuries. Yet for too much of this century, politicians have forgotten this fact. There has been too much ‘Whitehall knows best’. We are returning choice, returning responsibility to individuals and local communities. That is the key to a more united Kingdom – a Kingdom which values its common inheritance but respects the traditions, customs and instincts of all its people, wherever they live.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 July 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Construction Industry

    Mr. Devlin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will transfer responsibility for the construction industry from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Trade and Industry.

    The Prime Minister : No. The Department of the Environment is also responsible for housing and planning and for property holding. The interactions between all these responsibilities mean it makes sense to leave sponsorship of the construction industry where it is.

     

    Earth Summit

    Mr. Dafis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that the “Agenda 21” agreement at the Earth summit is given equal status in legal terms to the general agreement on tariffs and trade.

    The Prime Minister : Governments agreed agenda 21 as a dynamic framework for action reflecting political commitment at the highest level. It is not, however, intended to be a legally binding document. My EC and G7 colleagues have endorsed my plan for ensuring that agenda 21 and the other Rio agreements are implemented effectively, including through the preparation of national reports for the UN Sustainable Development Commission.

     

    Homelessness

    Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to establishing the ministerial interdepartmental committee to address the issue of homelessness.

    The Prime Minister : I am satisfied that the present arrangements provide for appropriate interdepartmental discussions of homelessness as necessary.

     

    Public Appointments

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

    The Prime Minister : The information is not held centrally in the form requested. My Department takes all relevant factors into account when considering such appointments.

     

    Departmental Advisers

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Mr. Chazanfer Ali

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Bradford, West concerning Mr. Chazanfer Ali if he will give an assurance that Mr. Ali will be given every assistance to return to the United Kingdom ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Any entry clearance application from Mr. Ali will be considered on its merits and in accordance with the immigration rules.

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister what information he has received from the British post in Islamabad about Mr. Chazanfer Ali.

    The Prime Minister : On 29 June the British High Commission in Islamabad made inquiries of the Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs about Mr. Chazanfer Ali’s circumstances. Once a substantive response has been received I will write to the hon. Member.

     

    Babcock and Wilcox

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 29 June, Official Report, column 593, about the European Council in Lisbon what discussions he had with the Italian Prime Minister on the letter from Babcock and Wilcox.

    The Prime Minister : I am pursuing the matter with the Italian Prime Minister. The sanctions imposed by the United Nations against Libya consist of a ban on air links and an embargo on trade in arms and in aircraft and aircraft components. There has been no suggestion that Italy is not applying those sanctions. I am aware of the concern expressed in the letter from Babcock that British companies risk losing trading opportunities in Libya. But we cannot allow the promise of commercial favours to deflect us from our determination to ensure that the Libyans comply in full with United Nations Security Council resolutions 731 and 748.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

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

  • PMQT – 14 July 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Bowis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

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

    Mr. Bowis : Does my right hon. Friend agree that some people have still not learnt the lesson that real and lasting growth can come only with an economy that is based on low taxation and low inflation? Is not that the reason why last week’s figures were so good? Will my right hon. Friend keep at it and ensure that his election pledge to lick inflation is fulfilled?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. I want to ensure that our record on inflation in the 1990s exceeds that of the 1980s, that we get inflation down to the lowest possible level and that we keep it there. Economic policy is geared to that end.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister recall his promise in the election that a Tory victory would provide the spark to ignite recovery? Will the Prime Minister now admit that no such ignition has taken place and that there will be no real recovery as long as he continues with the policies that have already brought us two full years of recession?

    The Prime Minister : I shall turn to the right hon. Gentleman’s point in a moment, if I may, for this is the last occasion that we will be able to exchange comments over the Dispatch Box in this fashion. We have done so on many occasions in the past 20 months. We have often disagreed, sometimes we have agreed, but I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman–[Hon. Members :– He’s going to resign.”] That is quite wrong; I am staying.

    I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support at times of crisis, for his strong support throughout the Gulf war and for the support that he has given us throughout the difficulties in Yugoslavia. On many occasions when he and I have had to deal privately with matters, without exception he has respected the confidences of those occasions. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to thank him for that and to do so publicly and with warmth.

    In direct response to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, he will know the view of the OECD and of the London business school, both of whose latest surveys forecast that recovery will be under way from the second quarter of this year. We share that view.

    Mr. Kinnock : I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his kind remarks. I consider it a great honour to have been able to serve my country in the way that I could. I know that he shares that vocation, and I hope that the country and its people can achieve greater success in the future.

    I put it to the Prime Minister that his strategy of perpetuating recession, combined with high unemployment, in an attempt to suppress inflation, has all the features of the slump of the 1930s. For the sake of our country, I put it to him that he should now recognise that continuation of those policies will not achieve durable or sustainable recovery, and will certainly not put our country at ease with itself.

    The Prime Minister : I respect the view that the right hon. Gentleman expresses, but I say in all sincerity that I cannot agree with him. The recovery–the jobs, the prosperity and the security–that everyone in this House wants for all our citizens can be based only on sustainable growth and low inflation. Unless we have low inflation as a base, we shall not get a form of growth that is sustainable. I realise that it is not easy, that it is uncomfortable and that it is frustrating when growth does not appear immediately, but I know of no other way to ensure the medium and long-term growth and prosperity of the nation, and I am determined to stick to the policies that I believe to be in our medium and long-term interests.

    Mr. Kinnock : May I say to the Prime Minister, with equal sincerity, that, after two years of recession, there is a very great danger that continuation of the present policies will risk driving the economy down so far as to make the prospect of recovery recede by years. I hope that the Prime Minister will use this summer to think again about the course of that policy and will adopt different policies that can give this country and its people the chance of jobs, growth and success, which we have not enjoyed in the immediate past.

    The Prime Minister : The Leader of the Opposition and I agree about what the objective is, but I regret that we do not agree about the basis that is necessary to achieve it. One needs to look at what is happening. The volume of exports was at a record level in May ; our volume share of world trade has recovered, after being in decline for many years ; car sales are increasing ; producer price inflation is at a very low level indeed. The ingredients are there. I return to the independent view of both the OECD and the London business school that recovery will be under way in the second half of this year. And it will be recovery based on a rate of inflation that is far lower than anyone in this House predicted 18 months ago. It is from that base that we shall get the growth that we all wish to see.

    Sir Michael Marshall : In a week that marks the 75th birthday of the British space pioneer Arthur C. Clarke and his visit to the House of Commons will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of assuring the House that during our presidency of the EC Her Majesty’s Government will make every effort to take initiatives in the space field to improve the quality of life and assist British industry?

    The Prime Minister : I think I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I welcome the visit of Mr. Clarke to the House. We shall continue to take initiatives, within Europe, internationally and in other forums, in pursuit of space priorities. We are particularly interested in the development of Earth observation systems for the monitoring of the environment and of climate change.

     

    Q2. Mr. John D. Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

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

    Mr. Taylor : May I take this opportunity to register the thanks of the Ulster Unionist party to the Leader of the main Opposition party for the leadership he has given to Her Majesty’s Opposition. It has been a privilege to work with him in recent years.

    Now that the inter-party talks on Northern Ireland have advanced to strands 2 and 3, in which Her Majesty’s Government are no longer in the chair but are equal partners with the other participants, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he recognises that progress towards real understanding, recognition and mutual respect in the island of Ireland depends upon the removal of articles 2 and 3 from the constitution of the southern Irish republic? Will Her Majesty’s Government take the opportunity available to them in strands 2 and 3 to request the Dublin Government to remove their constitutional claim over that part of the United Kingdom known as Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that articles 2 and 3 are important ingredients in the progress that has to be made. I welcome the talks at Lancaster House last week and I look forward to further substantive talks in Belfast later this week. This is an historic opportunity. I have made that clear to the Taoiseach. I think that he shares that view. He was generous enough to do so in a joint message just a few days ago. It would not be helpful for anyone to say a great deal about the talks while they continue, not least because the participants have agreed on the vital importance of confidentiality. But the talks have gone further than many imagined. The position is more hopeful than it has been for many years. We must all hope that the talks can make further progress.

     

    Q3. Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

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

    Mr. Thompson : In the light of the harrowing plight of the children of Sarajevo, is there any immediate prospect of medical assistance being sent or provided to help with the terrible suffering which is occurring there?

    The Prime Minister : Some progress has been made this morning. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that a team of eight doctors and nurses from the South Manchester accident and rescue team is assembling its emergency supplies. Subject to the necessary clearance from the United Nations, which we expect to receive shortly, the team will fly out to Zagreb later today or tomorrow. It will link up with the United Nations and United Kingdom medical teams already in the area. It will be there both to offer immediate medical assistance as required and to report back to me with an on-the-spot assessment of the best way in which we can help those tragic children.

    Mr. Ashdown : In view of the Prime Minister’s previous statements, can he deny that unemployment will be at or through 3 million by Christmas?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, no Minister of any Government has made projections of unemployment. I do not intend to start. We shall have some more figures later this week. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own assessment.

    Mr. Alan Howarth : Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of the former leader of the Labour party that “inflation is the father and mother of unemployment”?

    Does he agree that inflation is a social as well as economic evil that has dogged this country for a generation? Does he accept that he has wide support in the country in his determination to seize the opportunity that we have now to defeat inflation decisively?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend is right. I well recall the quotation that he uses. We have the headline rate of inflation down to 3.9 per cent. and the underlying rate of inflation effectively down to 4.8 per cent. Both are falling. That is very welcome news indeed.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cummings : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

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

    Mr. Cummings : Is the Prime Minister aware that tens of thousands of chronically sick and disabled people are awaiting the determination of their application for disability living allowance? Is he further aware that, following a period of 10 months, the family of a late constituent of mine received a determination two days after the lady died? What does the Prime Minister intend to do about that disgraceful state of affairs?

    The Prime Minister : We seek to process such applications as speedily as possible. The Benefits Agency is examining the difficulty and putting in staff to address it as speedily as possible.

     

    Q5. Mr. Devlin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

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

    Mr. Devlin : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great pride in the north-east of England that Britain is shortly to become once again a net exporter of cars? Is not that a tribute to both the motor industry in general, which has restructured in the past few years, and to the Government’s success in attracting inward investment to Britain?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I believe that the attraction of inward investment is very important. Among other things, it relies on very low inflation and stable economic policies which do not change and are well understood. There is no doubt that the British car industry has made excellent progress in improving competitiveness and significantly reducing the balance of payments deficit on trade in the automotive industry. In welcoming that, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of inward investment, most notably, in that instance, in the motor car industry from Japan.

    Mr. Turner : Is the Prime Minister aware that his notion of the freedom to choose is an empty gesture to millions of people in this country? When they have paid their electric, water and gas bills, they find that they have nothing left for the simple pleasures of life. When will he do something to help those people, instead of helping the better off whom his Government have always helped?

    The Prime Minister : I am not sure that that is the invariable view of people who would call themselves better off. Of course we are concerned to help people who find themselves in such difficulties, and our policies have done so consistently during the past 12 years. What the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends do not like is choice itself. That is why they did not want to sell council houses, why they did not want people to choose what schools they have, and why they do not like choice in health. The truth is that when people choose, they choose conservatism and not socialism.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on Economic Summit and CSCE – 13 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement in the House of Commons on the Economic Summit and Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) made on the 13th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the economic summit in Munich and the summit of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe in Helsinki last week. I represented the United Kingdom at the economic summit, with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Foreign Secretary also attended the Helsinki summit.

    The economic summit met against the background of a world economy that is still sluggish. The difficulty of achieving non-inflationary growth was uppermost in our discussions. We would all like to see faster growth. Recovery has been slower in coming than anyone anticipated but the conclusions, which are in the Library of the House, record both our desire for stronger sustainable growth and our view that it can be achieved only through sound monetary and fiscal policies. Unless we get inflation down and keep it down there will be no lasting growth.

    The single biggest contribution that can be made to recovery throughout the world is a GATT settlement. A settlement would give a sharp non-inflationary boost to the world economy. The OECD has concluded that it would be equivalent to a $195 billion gain in annual incomes. More than $90 billion of that would accrue to developing and former communist countries. It would boost the economic transformation of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, encourage developing countries to persevere with their reforms, and check protectionism in world trade.

    A GATT settlement is essential, and I make no apology for having put it high on the agenda at Munich and insisting that it was discussed in detail. In the light of this year’s reform of the common agricultural policy, the remaining gap between the European Community and the United States on the crucial agricultural issues is a small one. I believe that it can be bridged and the communique contains a firm commitment to a result this year.

    At the economic summit last year I pledged to attend the Rio conference and urged others to do the same. On my return, I suggested an eight-point follow-up action plan. That plan, which is set out in the conclusions, was accepted by the G7.

    We also had a meeting with President Yeltsin, days after Russia had reached an agreement with the International Monetary Fund. The imminence of the Munich meeting undoubtedly helped to clinch that agreement. It opens the way for the IMF to release the first $1 billion credit tranche. That, in turn, opens the way to a debt-rescheduling agreement. I was able to announce that the United Kingdom is ready to make available $500 million of export credit cover for the former Soviet Union.

    Russia faces massive difficulties. Inflation is running at well over 150 per cent., the fiscal deficit is rising and will be well over 10 per cent. Of GDP for the rest of this year, and the pace of reform has slowed down in several areas. Translating reforms on paper into reforms in operation is proving difficult. President Yeltsin assured us of his determination to put renewed impetus behind the reform programme. With the IMF programme in place it will be easier to monitor progress and to propose remedies, but none of us should underestimate the huge nature of his task : it is literally unparalleled and we all have a stake in his success. The United Kingdom has urged for some time that the Munich summit should take an initiative on the safety of nuclear power stations in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Members of the Community pledged themselves at Lisbon to provide significant resources. The G7 agreed on an action programme and to create a fund to supplement existing bilateral efforts to ensure a co-ordinated and targeted approach.

    The political declaration adopted at Munich underlines, in respect of the former Soviet Union, the general theme of help for self-help. It calls for a resolution of the northern territories dispute. The declaration also calls for the indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty at the 1995 extension conference and underlines the need, in the face of the growing demands on them, to strengthen both the United Nations and the CSCE.

    The CSCE played a crucial role in the 1970s, setting human rights standards which the communist world could not ignore. The role of the CSCE in monitoring human rights, especially minority rights, remains. The CSCE must also take on new roles as well. At last week’s meeting we agreed a number of new roles for the CSCE covering : the earlier warning of political conflicts ; the need for a new mechanism to improve the peaceful settlement of disputes; the establishment of a high commissioner for national minorities ; and the CSCE role in peacekeeping.

    No mechanisms can provide solutions if people are not willing to use them. It will take more than one or two conferences to resolve many of the ethnic conflicts that were frozen under communist rule and which are now coming aggressively to life again. But progress was made at that meeting, for example, on the issue of troop withdrawal from the Baltic states and on the handling of Yugoslavia. The overall priority in Yugoslavia is to try to get the parties to negotiate. In that task, Lord Carrington’s efforts are of crucial importance, and were underlined and endorsed at the Helsinki meeting. In the short term, our priority is the provision of humanitarian relief to Sarajevo and beyond. Britain already has 300 medical personnel as part of the UN force in Croatia. We have so far flown 28 humanitarian flights to Sarajevo. HMS Avenger will take part in an operation to monitor sanctions, jointly agreed at Helsinki by NATO and the Western European Union. The feasibility of establishing a land corridor to Sarajevo under UN auspices is being explored. If such an operation were feasible, Britain would be prepared to consider providing air cover for it. We would not supply ground troops.

    Everyone who has seen the recent news reports has been shocked and moved by the suffering children in Sarajevo. At the end of last week, we told the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that we stood ready to evacuate children from Sarajevo to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, or to send medical teams to Yugoslavia to provide treatment on the spot.

    If it is possible to treat the children on the spot, near to their families, with people around them who speak their language and in relatively familiar surroundings, that is obviously the best way. We have told the International Red Cross that we are willing to fly out medical personnel at very short notice if needed. I hope to meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in London later this week to see what further action is needed.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Douglas Hurd in Helsinki – 10 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, in Helsinki on Friday 10th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    A year and a half ago at the Paris summit, all the countries present celebrated the end of communism and the re-emergence of many European democracies. We knew at that time, when that meeting took place, that a lot of ancient disputes, frozen by communism, suppression of national identity, would be likely to re-emerge. And events have shown that to be an entirely accurate judgment. Yugoslavia of course is the most vivid example but there are many others, including in the former Soviet Union. I have no doubt that other bushfires from time to time will break out as well.

    The CSCE played a central role in setting human rights standards which the communist world could not ignore. It would be very good to think in the post-communist world that with the re-emergence of democracy those standards would automatically apply. But we know that is not the case so the old role of the CSCE as a human rights monitor, particularly in respect of ethnic minorities, continues and becomes more important. But it has to take on a new role as well, a role as fire-fighter.

    At this meeting we have agreed a number of new roles for the CSCE, they cover the early warning of potential conflicts, a particularly important role I think; mechanisms to improve the peaceful settlement of disputes; the establishment of a High Commissioner for national minorities and of course a CSCE role in peace-keeping as well.

    I would not wish to make exaggerated claims for any of those developments and I think other people would be unwise to do so as well. The CSCE is a bit like the United Nations, but it does lack the sharp edge which the Security Council gives to the UN. It can only act by consensus, its effectiveness, therefore depends upon peer pressure, upon the pressure which a majority of nations in Europe can bring upon a minority, and ultimately upon the willingness of its members to use the mechanisms that are available to it. Again, Yugoslavia provides the most vivid example.

    One of the sub-plots in Yugoslavia has been whether the naval monitoring of sanctions in the Adriatic should be done by the Western European Union or jointly by NATO and the Western European Union. Agreement has been reached that it should be a joint operation. It is right for Europe to play a more prominent role in defence, but it would be dangerous and it would be foolish for any of us in Europe to try and exclude the United States and NATO from European defence operations.

    As at Lisbon, as at Munich, Yugoslavia has been high on the agenda and NATO and Western European Union Foreign and Defence Ministers have been meeting in the margins to discuss what more we can do. As of today HMS Avenger is to take part in the sanctions monitoring force. Our humanitarian airlift into Sarajevo continues. We are collectively looking at the feasibility of a land corridor to Sarajevo so that food can be supplied under United Nations auspices. If, if such an operation were feasible, Britain would be prepared to consider providing air cover for it but we would not be supplying ground troops.

    At the same time we must continue to support fully Lord Carrington’s efforts to bring the parties in Bosnia Herzegovina, and indeed in the other republics, closer to a political settlement in their own areas and of their own differences.

    The crucial responsibility here, and I emphasise that, the crucial responsibility here is with Lord Carrington, a fact which was underlined and endorsed by the Western European Union Foreign Ministers in their discussion earlier today.

    In my capacity as President of the European Community, I have had separate meetings here with Prime Minister Schluter of Denmark, the President and the Prime Minister of Finland and Prime Minister Bilt of Sweden. There will be further contacts with the Danish government over the coming weeks.

    With the Prime Ministers of Finland and Sweden I set out our plans for handling the preparations for enlargement of the Community. Although the official negotiations cannot start before Maastricht ratification is complete, there is a general willingness in the Community to complete as much of the business as possible behind the scenes before the ratification.

    I also have taken the opportunity of this visit here to have a meeting with Eduarde Shevardnadze of Georgia and with President Kravchuk of the Ukraine. It was my first meeting with President Kravchuk but not, of course, with Mr Shevardnadze for we were both Foreign Ministers at the same time, we were in touch during the coup in Moscow and have been so on many occasions in the past.

    So both in terms of the documentation that has been signed here and the bilateral contacts that I have been able to make during my visit here, it has been a worthwhile occasion and the Foreign Secretary and I will endeavour to field any questions you may have about any of those matters.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Graham Leech, BBC):

    If the feasibility of a land corridor is established, if the appropriate UN resolution were obtained, why would Britain not be among those countries willing to deploy ground troops to secure that corridor?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Every country must make its own contribution towards the overall UN contribution. We are making a contribution in flying in humanitarian forces, we are making a contribution at sea, we are making a contribution by air. Other people have their expertise in different areas and have indicated that they would be prepared to undertake different responsibilities.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    We gather that there has been disagreement over wording of a resolution here on Yugoslavia and that it will not be agreed, does that not rather overshadow the efforts of this organisation to try and turn itself from a talking shop into a real organisation which can play a part in resolving these ethnic disputes.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have the pleasure of having one of the negotiators with me.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: (DOUGLAS HURD)

    The difficulty as I understand it, this was handled by officials, was that there were some who wanted a declaration on Yugoslavia, we would have been very glad to have one, others wanted a declaration on Nogorno Karabakh, there was difficulty in agreeing the second and therefore difficulty in agreeing the first because some people linked the two. I do not think anyone expects the CSCE to be operative on Yugoslavia. The people who are operating on Yugoslavia are the Community, Lord Carrington’s peace conference as the Prime Minister just said, the UN with the UN force in Croatia, UN sanctions, and the humanitarian effort which is going ahead. So I do not think the absence of a CSCE declaration on Yugoslavia is at all harmful.

    QUESTION (Charles Reiss, Evening Standard):

    If we were to provide cover for a land corridor, and I realise you say it is conditional, can you at this stage say what form and what strength that might take and if not who will be doing the work and how fast do you expect it to be completed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is too early to give a precise answer to that, we do not know whether other people would offer to provide air cover as well or whether a substantial part of the responsibility would fall to the United Kingdom. What we have done thus far is indicate our willingness in principle, providing the feasibility of the operation is established, to provide suitable air cover. Other people may offer to do so as well, As with the naval operations, other people will offer to assist the British ships that will take part. So it is difficult to say yet, Charles, precisely how much we will need to do but the agreement that we will take part is clear.

    QUESTION (Newsweek):

    In the debate about whether WEU or NATO or both would be involved in, this Yugoslavia operation, of course the two greatest proponents of NATO having a role are Great Britain and the United States, if those are the two major powers unwilling to commit ground forces, if that should become necessary, does that not undercut a little bit the ability and the power of the argument that NATO should be heavily involved or should take the lead?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think it does and for several reasons. If we actually look at the security of Europe over the past 40 years, it has been a NATO secured security, a security secured by the Alliance and essentially, it has to be said, by the sheer strength and importance of the American presence in Europe and the capacity of the Americans beyond Europe to cone to Europe had it been necessary. That remains the situation in terms of Europe in the future. It also has to be said that the time has come for the Europeans themselves proportionately to take a greater share of the defence of Europe and of activities within Europe. And I think it is therefore entirely right for the Europeans themselves to take a greater role, although under NATO auspices, in operations that take place within Europe. And that of course is precisely what is happening. Different countries in the NATO Alliance have different interests in Yugoslavia, different history, different contacts with Yugoslavia, a number of nations, some very close to Serbia, some very close to Croatia, some geographically very close, and it is really a question of horses for courses, we must determine who can do what best and share out the responsibilities equally and adequately. But the overall position and the overall NATO umbrella I think is quite clear.

    What would be immensely difficult and dangerous for the whole of Europe would be if the Europeans’ responsibility to take a greater proportionate responsibility for defence led them to set up parallel proposals to NATO and to have two quite separate establishments dealing with the overall defence of Europe. That would be damaging, that would be dangerous, we have repeatedly said that. But the fact that within NATO different European nations should take on different responsibilities as a part of NATO seems to us to be the way ahead. The Foreign Secretary would like to add something to that.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    The point was illustrated by what actually happened here today. We had a meeting of WEU Ministers this morning and we approved the declaration which you have and you will see scattered through that at several points the emphasis on consultation and coordination with NATO. And then we had a meeting with NATO Ministers which I was very keen should happen but which only lasted quarter of an hour because there was no disagreement on the statement put out by NATO about the NATO part of it, and in that there is clear reference to cooperation with the naval force established by the WEU.

    So that outline, that work together which was sketched in principle, in theory, in many discussions last year, some of them very difficult discussions, has had its first test in action and the way in which decisions were reached this morning is I think reasonably encouraging although of course a lot depends on the follow through.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

    Prime Minister, does Britain now want to see a more strongly-worded UN Resolution and were that to come to pass, would you join President Bush in not ruling out the possibility that British airplanes could be involved in a strike against Yugoslavian insurgents?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have never ruled out the possibility of further action. We have set out the difficulties of it; we have set out the concerns of it; we have indicated the areas where we would take part in maintaining sanctions at sea with British vessels; in providing air cover for any land corridor that might be opened; in flying humanitarian supplies into Sarajevo – a number of RAF planes have been in and out of Sarajevo and that will continue.

    Those are the areas where we must continue and it may be that at some stage we will need a further United Nations Resolution. We will face that as and when it comes.

    QUESTION (Marini Vijo, Athens Radio):

    Another side of the Yugoslav problem is the issue of the previous federal Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. During the British Presidency, do you believe that a solution to this problem can be found and what kind of solution do you expect that this will be?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the difficulties of setting out what you think the solution would be is that sometimes you might make it more difficult to actually achieve the solution. That it will be a priority for us to continue to look at the problems of Yugoslavia – and it will fall particularly to the Foreign Secretary’s remit and he will wish to add something in a moment – I think there is no doubt. We will give it very high priority but I am not sure we are able to anticipate in advance of discussions and meetings that will take place what the outcome will be but the Foreign Secretary may wish to add something to that.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I agree with that. The Lisbon Summit reached a conclusion on that and I will carry that conclusion when I go to Skopje next week and I will discuss that with President Gigarov of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and I will then report back to the Foreign Affairs Council on July 20.

    QUESTION:

    The WEU operation seems to lack a clear command structure. We are talking about coordinating half a dozen ships, rules of engagement, operational activities but nobody actually in charge of it. Isn’t that rather a dangerous position to be in?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    The command structure will of course be worked out between the WEU and NATO and from what I gather from the experts, including Archie Hamilton our Minister of State who was helping us this morning, they do not foresee any great difficulty about that. Of course, you are perfectly right that there will have to be a command structure.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a problem that inevitably there is when one has collaborative ventures of this sort and if one has to develop these collaborative ventures on the hoof as occasionally proves necessary, there are bound to be technical discussions about matters like that but they can be resolved and they will be.

    QUESTION (Nick Comfort, Daily Record):

    In your speech this morning, Prime Minister, you said when trouble threatens new means must be found to encourage or compel recourse to peaceful settlement. Doesn’t this look like a bit of a pipe-dream, given what is happening in Yugoslavia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think so. The CSCE has been quiescent one might say for a long time. It is now developing a new lease of life. We have a new Europe; we have a Europe with members who previously were wholly within the communist area. There is a great deal, I think, that can be done with peer pressure.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As year succeeds year, we all become more economically independent. Economic pressures will undoubtedly grow as between the majority of European nations and one transgressor within Europe. That is not invariably going to solve the problems but I think the prospects of them being able to bring much greater pressure on people to solve problems increase as time goes on. That is especially true of disputes between nations rather than disputes within a nation such as the problem we have in Yugoslavia which makes it so particularly intractable at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to come back to the feasibility of a land corridor to Bosnia-Hercegovina. What is your position at the moment? Is it feasible or is it not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know the answer to that, as to whether it is feasible or not; that is why the feasibility study is being carried out, to find out whether it is going to be feasible.

    If you actually look at the terrain, it is a very difficult proposition indeed to actually establish these corridors and to man them and provide security for the Red Cross and the United Nations troops in blue helmets that will be there so it is acutely difficult and nobody can be certain precisely how that feasibility study will turn out. I hope that it will prove to be possible.

    Clearly, bringing humanitarian supplies into Sarajevo airport is important but the humanitarian supplies also have to be distributed. Quite how quickly that feasibility study can be brought to a successful conclusion, I don’t know. I can only say I hope it will prove to be possible and we will help provide the air cover if it then seems that it a) is possible and b) requires air cover.

    QUESTION (Hella Pick, The Guardian):

    I wanted to ask you why nothing has been done about enforcing the trade embargo against Serbia by land and along the Danube. Is that something which is envisaged? Do you think that is feasible and will Britain be involved in that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is one of the areas of embargo that we will have to examine and it is only in the last day or so that we have actually got ships to sea to look at the trade embargo from the sea. They, of course, at the moment can only log the vessels going in and out and would need a new United Nations Resolution to stop them. Whether the existing United Nations Resolution would provide land action I am not immediately sure but the Foreign Secretary may know the answer to that.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I don’t think so. What the existing Resolution does is set up a Sanctions Committee which monitors the results of breaches of sanctions and there has been some discussion going on as to whether there has been some arrival of embargoed goods by land in Serbia. If that were clearly evidenced to the Security Council Sanctions Committee, then the Security Council would have to consider what action to take to prevent member states from breaching the embargo but that has not been proved yet.

    QUESTION (Alistair Campbell):

    Prime Minister, can you sum up for us why Britain is apparently so much more cautious than some of your partners?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know that we are more cautious than all our partners. A number of our partners are very cautious about what actually happens and what can be achieved immediately around Sarajevo.

    One only has to look at the immediate land situation around Sarajevo to see the problems that immediately exist. There you have the airport stuck in the middle of hills; you have a whole series of different groups under the control of different warlords fighting and shooting one against the other; there is no proper command control. There are a vast number of people one needs to negotiate with and if you look at the terrain, it resembles nothing so much geographically as Dien Bien Phu and one remembers the difficulties that actually occurred there.

    So the advice of the military – not just in the United Kingdom but a number of other countries as well – is that it an extremely difficult military operation. It isn’t simply a question of going into the area, conducting a brief exercise and then coming out of the area. It would firstly be difficult to get in; it would secondly be difficult to be effective when they were in; and thirdly, it would be acutely difficult perhaps to get out. Those are matters that the military commanders and those who study the feasibility of these operations will have to take very much into account.

    We saw those problems at an early stage and that is why we expressed ourselves as being cautious about them but we are in no sense alone about that and I think it is also worth nothing the remarks that have been made by some of the United Nations personnel, General Mackenzie amongst them, on the ground that we need to be very cautious about what happens with other land troops not to put at risk the UN humanitarian operation itself. In those circumstances, if other troops are there and people start firing at troops, it is extremely doubtful that they would draw a distinction between the other troops and the United Nations troops in blue helmets who are there for humanitarian reasons and that is a point that has to weigh very heavily with Mr. Boutros Ghali, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, very heavily with General Mackenzie, the Canadian commander of the troops there and very heavily with the rest of us.

    Gestures are no adequate response to putting at risk the humanitarian operation that is there and we have to face the reality of what can be done and what the price of doing it might be and it is for those reasons amongst others, why we have set out some of the problems and to borrow the phrase of the Foreign Secretary, find ourselves in land operations at the cautious end of the spectrum.

    QUESTION (Edwina Morton, The Economist):

    Prime Minister, there has been a lot of talk of conflict-prevention at this Summit. Some of the bitterest remarks in the Plenary Session have been directed at the problem of the continued presence of Russian troops in the Baltic States and Moldova. Is there any plan to assist in the speedier relocation of those troops? Does Britain intend to take any role in that whatsoever?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just add one thing I should have said perhaps to Alistair Campbell in the last question? There is one further point:

    I should have made the point – because I had in my mind the fighting troops that some people are keen to put in – that we do of course have a number of British ambulance men actually on the ground as part of UNPROFOR, I think from memory round about 300 though it may be slightly more, so we do have British personnel on the ground in and around Sarajevo contributing to ambulance operations and they will stay there.

    To revert to the question that has just been asked, I think events have moved on with the peer pressure that has been created and the Russians have said they will now remove their troops from the Baltic States. What we don’t yet have is a clear indication of the time-scale with which they would do it.

    I have raised that matter with colleagues in some of my discussions here today and I know the Foreign Secretary has done the same I think the right way to proceed is to continue to put pressure on Russia both to remove them and to examine whether assistance is needed to enable then to remove them – for they have their own difficulties in doing so that we must acknowledge – but I think a good step forward has been made in the acknowledgement by the Russians that these troops will be removed in full from the Baltic territories. Now that has been agreed we must act to make sure that it happens and happens within a measurably short period of time.

  • Mr Major’s speech to the CSCE in Finland – 10 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the CSCE in Helsinki on Friday 10th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Firstly, may I say on behalf of the European Community and its member states, a very warm thank you for the hospitality that all of us have received here in Finland. You, the government and the people of Finland have made us very welcome and we are very grateful for that.

    Since its beginnings here in Helsinki, the CSCE has held out the prospect of freedom to the citizens of all of Europe, it was established, when the borders and attitudes of Europe were frozen by the Cold War. But now, now we have a very different Europe. People oppressed for decades now have a new voice, new aspirations.

    But it does not in many ways seem as simple as it did just two years ago. National identities, national ambitions, have been rediscovered and with them so have old quarrels and old tensions. The Europe of the late 20th century looks suspiciously like the Europe of the early 20th century, more countries, more national identities, each jostling for position.

    The liberation of so many people from communism is an immense gain for European civilisation, but we must not allow the new diversity to resemble the old chaos. We have institutions to help us manage the problems which our very diversity brings, and we must use those institutions, not least the CSCE itself.

    The CSCE provides a framework in which difficult, historic rivalries can be tackled peacefully and reasonably, it set standards for international behaviour and for the democratic treatment of minorities. We look to the CSCE to play a crucial part in binding our new Europe together.

    The Community and its member states support wholeheartedly the summit documents which we shall sign today. The documents represent a fundamental change for all of us to settle disputes peacefully. We subscribed to this principle in the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, when trouble threatens new means must be found to encourage or compel recourse to peaceful settlement.

    The dissolution of Yugoslavia brings home to us the need for peaceful negotiation of this sort. All parties have contributed in their own way to the state of affairs that now exists. But the greater share of responsibility falls on the Serbian leadership.

    Since violent conflict began last year, the European Community, acting under the remit of the CSCE, has done what it can to bring about a solution. The conference, the conference chaired by Lord Carrington, has established a framework for a settlement. The Presidency will strive to make progress, working in close cooperation with the United Nations.

    Our monitor mission has rebuilt confidence in same of the worst afflicted areas. Some monitors have been killed and those responsible must be brought to account. The monitors who remain continue to risk their lives for European ideals, for CSCE principles and I pay very warm tribute to them.

    As we said at the European Council in Lisbon on 29 June, the Community and its member states believe that the immediate dispatch of observers to Kosovo and to neighbouring states would contribute to the restoration of confidence. The conflict, the conflict in and around Nogorno-Karabakh is another tragedy which threatens wider instability. The European Community and its member states urge all parties to negotiate in good faith for a peaceful settlement, we call for the early convocation, after the discussions in Rome, of the Minsk peace conference, we need that because the issue cannot be resolved by force of arms, and the same holds true of the conflicts in Georgia and Moldova.

    Drawing on the lessons of these crises, the Community and its member states have put forward proposals for resolving disputes and preventing conflicts. The CSCE should not be a watching by-stander, a hand-wringing on-looker to Europe’s quarrels. The CSCE must develop the means and the will to act before the fighting begins.

    We welcome the important decision to establish a High Commissioner on national minorities; we welcome the agreement that the CSCE may request organisations such as NATO, the Western European Union and the European Community to help in peace-keeping. With these decisions the CSCE has come of age as a regional organisation, capable of acting in the framework of the UN Charter to maintain stability.

    But the task of keeping peace begins at home. The essence of democracy is to debate issues peacefully and to accept decisions fairly reached. Free and fair elections, open government, respect for human rights are not a fleeting novelty, they are an integral part of what Europe means today.

    The Community and its member states will press for action in the CSCE against any CSCE governments which commit clear, gross and uncorrected human rights violations, such governments cannot expect to benefit from Community assistance. Democratic principles and practices lie at the heart of the problem of minorities. As the events of recent months have shown, governments of states with national minorities on their territories must enable members of those minorities to participate freely and effectively in their country’s public life. And to achieve our ambitions for the CSCE, the CSCE must use its different institutions effectively. We welcome the provision in the summit documents for support for the Chairman in office in the exercise of his responsibilities and for decision-making in some circumstances by ad hoc groups of states.

    The European Community was created to make war impossible among its members and to underpin democracy. It achieved that through close knit economic cooperation. You will not be surprised to hear therefore that 35 years on the Community is also committed to helping the new democracies in their historic transition to market economies and in tackling their formidable environmental problems. The relationship between thriving market economies and successful democracies is not an accidental relationship.

    I would like, Mr Chairman, also to make a few brief remarks in my national capacity. It is one thing to proclaim democracy, it is quite another to maintain democracy. To this end, I want to promote six ways to make the CSCE more effective:

    – first, the keynote for the future should be a Europe for individuals, not a Europe for officialdom or for politicians, but a Europe for all its individual citizens. An integral part of modern democracy is the right of the citizen to challenge the state, individuals need to know what their rights are, whether in the matter of law or of other essential services;

    – secondly, we need thorough scrutiny of the record of states in putting Helsinki standards into practice, I am glad that the United Kingdom proposals in this area have been accepted;

    – third, more effort in monitoring standards should serve to prevent conflict, that where this fails the CSCE has to face up to rising tensions, even outright conflict, and CSCE member states must be willing, not only to submit problems for investigation, but also to adopt and to implement the outcome, the CSCE should be ready- to assist at the early stages of ethnic rivalry. One feature of our new Europe is the fact that the dissolution of the former Soviet Union has left some 25 million Russian speakers living beyond the borders of the Russian federation. Other delicate and complex minority issues have emerged. The High Commissioner for Minorities can perform an historic task in helping all the states come to terms with these realities;

    – fourth, we need a politically binding code of conduct on security relations between states, this should cover the subordination of armed forces to democratic government and the circumstances in which a state’s armed forces might support the civil power, the United Kingdom will work hard in this area;

    – fifth, this summit will increase the range and depth of CSCE activities but this does not require a large new level of officialdom, the CSCE’ s administrative corps needs to remain small and the CSCE should not take on tasks tackled satisfactorily elsewhere. It can and it should call on the resources of existing bodies, it has done so today by accepting the principle of recourse to international organisations for peace-keeping;

    – and sixth, the CSCE should appoint a Secretary General to assist the Chairman in office, such an office would provide continuity in our work and represent the CSCE internationally, adding to its authority.

    At this summit, Mr Chairman, we have the new Europe assembled. It is a momentous occasion, the CSCE not only helped end the Cold War, it enabled it to end peacefully in a spirit of democracy and cooperation. If CSCE membership is only a formality then this organisation will be a sham. What counts is not what we have said; not even what we have signed, what counts truly is what we now do to give our commitments real meaning in the lives of the citizens in every part of the new Europe.

  • PMQT – 9 July 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th July 1992. Tony Newton deputised for John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Helen Jackson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is on his way to Helsinki to attend a conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

    Mrs. Jackson : Will the Leader of the House be so kind as to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that the prompt and efficient administration of public money is his responsibility and therefore, that it is his and his Government’s responsibility that many of my constituents are waiting more than six months to have their disability living allowance claims processed? Will he ask the Prime Minister to join me in commiserating with Mr. Michael Bichard who has had no fewer than 26 parliamentary questions and hundreds of letters of complaint referred to him from hon. Members?

    Mr. Newton : I am not sure that I shall invite my right hon. Friend to agree with all that, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree about the duty that we all have to ensure the proper administration of public money, about the satisfaction, which the hon. Lady has not expressed, in the level of demand for the extremely successful new disability benefits, and about the Government’s determination to ensure that those benefits are effectively delivered.

     

    Q2. Sir John Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Sir John Hannam : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tremendous success of the health service reforms, especially in my part of Devon where the general practitioner fund holdings and the trusts are working for the benefit of staff and patients? Will he welcome the changed attitude of the British Medical Association, which shows the popularity and success of the reforms?

    Mr. Newton : Yes, I very much welcome that. It reflects the fact that practical experience throughout the country is demonstrating the benefits of those reforms. There is clearly also a wide welcome for the announcement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, which will build further on their success.

    Dr. John Cunningham : What reasons does the Leader of the House give for the Prime Minister’s failure to achieve his objectives at the economic summit in Munich?

    Mr. Newton : An economic summit, whether it takes place in Munich or anywhere else, is a gathering of people designed to achieve agreement on the pursuit of common objectives. No one member of such a gathering can force the others to agree. It is clear, however, that useful progress was made at Munich on key objectives relating both to western relations with Russia and to advancing the objectives of the GATT round. Progress was also made in a number of other ways.

    Dr. Cunningham : Is it not clear that no amount of vacuous communiques can disguise the fact that, for the second year running, Britain is bottom of the G7 league in relation to growth, investment and job creation? As even Lady Thatcher is now warning of economic catastrophe in Britain, is it not time for new economic and industrial policies for our country? Will the Government act now or will they simply continue to wring their hands and do nothing?

    Mr. Newton : It is clear that the action taken by the Government in recent months is creating a secure foundation for the country to emerge from the recession in the latter part of this year. If the hon. Gentleman is in a quoting frame of mind, he may wish to know that in a press release issued only three or four days ago the Institute of Directors said that half the directors questioned in June were more optimistic. That is the highest level of sustained optimism since August 1988.

    Dr. Cunningham : Twelve months ago, the Prime Minister claimed a triumph for the economic summit in London, and the Government did nothing. Will they do nothing again about the appalling misery that they are creating in this country?

    Mr. Newton : The Government will continue with the sustained application of policies which are producing the conditions for recovery, and doing so successfully.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hague : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hague : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this week’s announcement of an order for the fourth Trident submarine? Does he agree that the three best recent additions to the future security of the nation are the ordering of the submarine, the re-election of a Government who had the consistency and good sense to proceed with the order, and the defeat of Opposition parties whose recommendations vary from scrapping this important deterrent altogether to sending submarines out to sea with no weapons on board?

    Mr. Newton : In a word, I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said.

    Ms. Lynne : Can the Leader of the House explain how we can take the proposals on health promotion seriously when the Government are presiding over the collapse of national health service dentistry?

    Mr. Newton : It is absurd to suggest that the Government are presiding over the collapse, as the hon. Lady puts it, of NHS dentistry, given the increases in NHS treatment, the number of dentists and their remuneration over the past few years.

     

    Q4. Mr. Haselhurst : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Haselhurst : In the light of the targets set in the Government’s White Paper, published yesterday, will the Government consider removing tobacco products from the calculation of the retail prices index? If we believe that price is the main deterrent to smokers, is it not ridiculous that the Chancellor should feel any inhibition about increasing duty on tobacco products because of the effect that that would have on the cost of living and on benefits related to it?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend will know that an advisory committee looks carefully and independently at the proper make-up of the RPI. I would not wish to dictate to that committee how it should do its work. I should point out, however, referring to the figures given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, that the increases in tobacco prices in recent years do not suggest that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been suffering from any inhibition in that respect.

     

    Q5. Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Barnes : At 4 o’clock this afternoon in the Jubilee Room the Spastics Society will launch a report on the problems of disabled people in the 1992 general election. Is the Leader of the House aware that many disabled people could not gain access to polling stations in the election and also had problems with the postal voting system? Will he ensure that the report, entitled “Polls Apart”, is studied at the highest level and that action is taken to ensure that everyone, able-bodied or disabled, who is entitled to exercise the franchise, is given access to the procedure?

    Mr. Newton : As a former Minister for disabled people myself, I would not wish to do anything with such a report other than to examine it carefully and draw it to the attention of those concerned, returning officers and others. The hon. Gentleman’s concern is legitimate.

     

    Q6. Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell : Now that Germany has made it clear that it intends to continue for a long period in the maintenance of economic policies which are driving the rest of Europe from recession into slump, so as to re-equip its eastern provinces, is it not more than ever necessary for British Ministers to show the same resolution in supporting British industry? As this country has determined its own money supply for several centuries, why do Ministers suddenly find that they can no longer do that without having their hands held by a group of German bank clerks? Has not the time now come for us to leave the exchange rate mechanism, at least until such time as German interest rates are reduced to a level compatible with the needs of the whole of the rest of Europe?

    Mr. Newton : The British Government–with support from both sides of the House, in my recollection–accepted the disciplines of the ERM as the essential basis for a British policy designed to bring down inflation and to create the conditions for a sound economy. I see no basis for departing from that.

     

    Q7. Ms. Primarolo : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Ms. Primarolo : Will the Leader of the House explain why, under the citizens charter, someone whose train is late is entitled to claim compensation, but when the Government fail to ensure that people’s applications for disability allowances are speedily processed, those people are not entitled to claim compensation against the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Prime Minister that proposals for such compensation should be produced as a matter of urgency, to ensure the efficiency of government?

    Mr. Newton : As I believe the hon. Lady knows, in certain fairly limited circumstances compensation may be payable for a failure of the Department–for negligence, perhaps. The key is to ensure, as the Department is actively seeking to do, that the high level of demand for the new disability benefits–having introduced them myself, I welcome that high level of demand–is met by the administration. That is what my colleagues in the Department are seeking to do.

     

    Q8. Mr. Mark Robinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Robinson : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday’s White Paper on “The Health of the Nation”? Will he also welcome the fact that, at a time of vastly increased resources for the health service, the Government are pushing ahead to make further improvements to the health of the nation and will continue to do so?

    Mr. Newton : I agree with my hon. Friend. Yesterday’s White Paper is a significant development in the success of the national health service and in its further success for the rest of this century and beyond. It marks a significant move from the health service’s being, in old-fashioned terms, an illness service, to its being a genuine health service.

     

    Q9. Mr. Darling : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Darling : Why did the Government forget to mention in their manifesto of just three months ago that they intended to privatise water supply in Scotland?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman is aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has had those matters under consideration. He will also be aware that my right hon. Friend will set out the basis of Government policy in the appropriate way, at the appropriate time.

    Mr. George Howarth : Is the Leader of the House aware that this is national housing week and that housing provision and the construction industry are gripped in a crisis? Would not this be an appropriate time to organise the phased release of the £7 billion of local authority capital receipts to solve the housing crisis and the crisis that the Government have engineered in the construction industry?

    Mr. Newton : I am tempted to refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply that I myself gave on that point on Tuesday. The Government are in the process of making £6 billion available to housing associations over the next three years. That will produce about 150,000 new homes for rent or low-cost ownership.

    Mr. Moate : Recalling the visit to London by thousands of fishermen earlier this week, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to ask Parliament to impose tough restrictions on British fishermen which will not be applied to Common Market fishermen–including those who fish in British- controlled waters, with some taking British quota? As the proposals are clearly unfair and will almost certainly be doomed to failure without the industry’s co-operation, will my right hon. Friend consult his colleagues about withdrawing them now and starting new consultations?

    Mr. Newton : I certainly cannot undertake to enter consultations with a view to withdrawing proposals which are most important in relation to the conservation of fish stocks and, therefore, to the long-term future of our fishing industry. Other member states will be subject to Community targets. Our aim is, and will remain, to ensure that the burden of adjustment is fairly shared.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Statement in Helsinki – 9 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep statement, made in Helsinki on Thursday 9th July 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, it does seem pretty tough on top people’s pay, what you have proposed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Many people in the private sector have had to take very low pay increases this year or in some cases no pay increases this year, and of course many of the increases that there have been in the public service for very large numbers of workers have been very modest this year, that is necessary and I think the same principle must apply to people at the top of the civil service as well. I know it is tough, and I sympathise with that, but I think it is necessary, we must have an equality of treatment.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that private business should…..

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have said that repeatedly in the past, yes I do think that and I have repeatedly said so.

    QUESTION:

    It is alleged that people will want to leave the public service if they can get better rates elsewhere?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not believe that that will be the case, I think we have dealt fairly with the public service over the years and I wish to continue to do so. I must emphasise, the people covered by these pay awards are people at the top of the civil service, the judiciary and of course the armed forces. They are very valuable to the public service and we very much value what they do, but at the moment we must seek pay restraint, pay restraint is being imposed in the private sector of necessity by very many companies upon millions of individuals, it is equally necessary in the public sector both for people at the top of the public sector and for people elsewhere in the public sector and that is what we have sought to do.