The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1992

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Interest Rates – 8 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on interest rates, made on 8th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you look at the level of interest rates now, it is not materially different from the average level of interest rates right the way through the 1980s. It feels different because the asset values have fallen but it is not different and people then say that the real rate of interest is quite high yet our real rate of interest is less than in Germany. For the first time since we joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism, our rate of interest has come to within 0.25 percent of the Germany interest rates for the first time in God knows how many years – more years than I care to remember.

    They say we are bound entirely by what happens to Germany, those people who oppose our present interest rates policy. I find that very odd. In the last twenty months since we joined, German interest rates have gone up by about 3%, sterling interest rates have come down by 5%. I think that is very odd. If we are tied dot and comma to everything that happens in Germany, I think people should explain why that should be so if that has happened. The point is it is not so and so I am suspicious of the one or two percent off interest rates to kick-start the economy argument. I know of no evidence that that is the case either in this country or in the evidence of what has happened elsewhere in the world.

    We will have to take interest rates down gradually as we can safely do so without damaging the exchange value of sterling and that is so in the Exchange Rate Mechanism or out of it.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Munich – 8 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Munich, held on Wednesday 8th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Perhaps I could firstly add my thanks to Chancellor Kohl and his colleagues in the German government, to the government of Bavaria, to the City authorities, and perhaps above all to the people of Munich who had to face, as is inevitably the case on these occasions, some disruption to their lives. I am very grateful for their forbearance, I hope that next time I can walk in Munich in the streets rather than be part of a large number of cars that are blocking up the streets, and I look forward to that.

    May I now turn to the summit discussions. I think most of you will know when these discussions were first established some years ago, they were originally intended, as an informal opportunity for Heads of Government to talk. Over the years that original format has tended to change, they have become more elaborate, more formal, better prepared, but also I think engendering higher expectations.

    In this summit I think there have been some achievements and also some disappointments. We have met in the last couple of days against the background of a world economy that is still sluggish, a good deal more sluggish than we would wish to see it. All of us would like to see faster growth, but we are having to deal with the aftermath of a revolution as well as a recession. The revolution, of course, is still going on in Russia and even here in Germany there has been a revolution of a kind and Germany is having to use all its motor power to kick-start its own economy and to deal with the difficult problems of what was once known as East Germany.

    In our discussions, the difficulties of achieving non-inflationary growth were uppermost in our discussions. Unless we keep inflation down there is going to be no growth worth having. Recovery has been slower in coming than anyone anticipated and we all acknowledged that in our discussions, we agreed that we cannot achieve sustainable non-inflationary growth without a commitment to sound money and to fiscal policy.

    There was one measure above all others, I believe, that will help, and that is a settlement of the Uruguay Round. A GATT settlement would give a very sharp, non-inflationary, boost to the world economy, a sharp boost I think also to confidence. But the specific boost to the world economy is equivalent to 195 billion dollars gain in annual world income and of that figure around 90 billion dollars would accrue to developing and to former communist countries. So it is a very great prize, that GATT settlement, when it is achieved, it would boost the economic transformation of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, encourage developing countries to persevere with other reforms and check protectionism in world trade.

    Quite bluntly, an agreement in that GATT round is essential. Some progress has been made, the CAP settlement is one illustration of that, better understanding of what remains to be done and the difficulties within individual states is another indication of progress. The remaining gap still to be settled in the Uruguay Round is relatively small. As far as Britain is concerned, we could settle our difficulties in thirty minutes, there is no difficulty there for us.

    In our discussions I repeatedly stressed the importance and the urgency of a settlement. I think it was essential to have a discussion here and as a result of that we have got in the communique a firmer commitment to detailed negotiations on the outstanding issues than we have had before.

    For Europe, the European Commission are of course our negotiators. But the United Kingdom, as Presidency of the Community, have an active role to play and we intend to play it, there is too much at stake to let GATT slip back down the agenda and we have no intention of letting that happen.

    I mentioned a moment ago that among the countries that would benefit from a GATT settlement would be the former Soviet Union. We are about to have lunch and then an extended meeting with Mr Yeltsin. We do not, I think, just meet as creditors and debtor, but as partners. The measures agreed at the weekend with the International Monetary Fund are tough measures for the release of the first tranche of assistance to the Russians. They open the way to that first credit tranche, they point the way clearly to debt rescheduling, they allow the United Kingdom to release the 500 million dollars of export credit cover that I announced in principle when Mr Yeltsin came to London in January, and we shall now release it without delay.

    The problems that Mr Yeltsin faces are huge and the dangers that he faces are enormous. Very clear evidence of what is at stake is shown by our interest in the safety of nuclear power plants in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Chernobyl, to some, may seem a long way away, but I must say to you it is pretty close at home to a sheep farmer in north Wales who, six years after the Chernobyl incident, still cannot sell his sheep at market. The scale of the problem is huge with a dozen stations like Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union alone.

    We have to approach that problem in the following ways. Firstly, urgent safety work at the most unsafe power stations; secondly, to replace them with safe alternatives as soon as possible; and thirdly, to help the former Soviet Union develop alternative

    [section of original missing]

    If we had been able to agree a decisive breakthrough to a GATT settlement, it would have been a huge bonus for the Munich summit. Britain, as I have said, can agree without delay, everyone will have to reach an agreement, the sooner that is done the better. If push comes to shove I am confident it can be done and for my part, push and shove I will, and so will the United Kingdom until we do have that settlement.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, last year’s summit communique made optimistic noises about the prospects for recovery in the world economy, you meet here admitting that it is sluggish and you were over-optimistic, what hope do we have that this year’s declarations will have any more substance by the time we meet in Tokyo next year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are some signs of recovery and we can see them, but they are very slow and very sluggish. It was clear last year that like many other people we anticipated a stronger recovery and an earlier recovery than yet we have had. One of the ingredients of that, I am sorry to return to the point but I think it is a critical point, one of the ingredients to recovery is going to be confidence and one of the ingredients to confidence will be the security and certainty of reaching an outcome for the Uruguay Round.

    Now that is a self-evident statement of reality. It is very disappointing, not the fault of this summit, but it is very disappointing that we did not have an agreement to the Uruguay Round some time ago, some nations have difficulty with it and I understand that, but I think the clear understanding amongst every participant here of the importance to world growth and to confidence of that agreement on the Uruguay Round was self-evident. So I think we are better placed than perhaps we were last year when we felt the recovery would come earlier, swifter and more effectively than in practice it did.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I rather agree with that, I perhaps would not have expressed it in quite that way, but I rather agree with that. That was why I was the first Western Head of Government to say that I would go to Rio and why I am delighted that so many Heads of Government went to Rio for what was the start of a process, it was never going to be totally solved at Rio, just as it will not be totally solved by an interruption. But he clearly cares very deeply about it, the mistake he perhaps makes is to believe that other people do not care deeply about it as well and I believe that they do.

    QUESTION (Peter Jay):

    Are you disappointed in the results of your personal GATT initiative and do you apportion the blame for this to an over-estimate of American support or to an under-estimate of French obduracy, and do you agree, on reflection, that Munich is no place for British Prime Ministers to seek to make historic agreements?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have made progress on GATT, I am not here to apportion blame for the fact that we were not able to make more progress, I am going to have to negotiate and talk with colleagues and apportioning blame is not a good basis for getting future progress subsequently, what I want is an agreement. I think it would have been intolerable if we had not raised the matter and discussed it here and I think there was general agreement about that.

    What is becoming increasingly apparent is the narrowness of the differences that actually exist. And with political will and political determination and political instruction, the negotiators will be able to reach a GATT agreement, that has been quite apparent from the discussions that we have had here in the last few days. So I think it has given a further impetus.

    And perhaps I can put the point to you the other way round. If I had not raised it and if others perhaps had not raised it and there would have been no discussion of GATT at Munich, what signal would that have given about the determination of people to reach a settlement? It had to be raised even though it was probably not practicable to expect a full settlement here, not least because all the negotiating partners are not here to reach a settlement. But it was imperative that the attempt was made and that the fact that this is of central importance was once again registered and accepted by the Heads of the most powerful industrial countries. So I think it was right to come here and raise the matter and. I think it has been helpful to have done so.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Munich – 8 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Munich, held on Wednesday 8th July 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what do you expect to tell Mr Yeltsin today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we want to hear from Mr Yeltsin how his reform programme is proceeding, I think there is agreement now on the first credit tranche from the IMF, so there is quite stiff conditionality attached to it. I think we will want to discuss how the reform programme is proceeding, not just in general terms but what specifically Mr Yeltsin sees happening next week, next month and in the months immediately ahead, it is a crucial critical period.

    QUESTION:

    Is there a worry that he will be demanding almost a bottomless commitment to aid?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I do not think so, I do not believe that will be the case, I have no doubt that Mr Yeltsin will set out the very difficult circumstances he faces, we all sympathise with that, the position is indeed extremely difficult. But I think it is really a question of examining the difficulties, looking at the conditionality attached to the first tranche of the IMF loan and pitching our minds forward to see what might happen in the future.

    QUESTION:

    How disappointed are you at the failure to make progress on the GATT negotiations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not know that it is entirely true to say there has been failure to make progress, I think it was absolutely essential that the GATT negotiations came on the agenda here, I think it would have been intolerable for us to have come here, the leaders of the seven industrial nations, and not faced squarely the difficulties that actually existed in the GATT Round. We gave our commitment to examine this in the past, I for one was determined that we would examine it and we have. It has not been possible to make a full breakthrough, I think that was always to be expected, there were parties who were part of the negotiation who were not here. But there is now no doubt, not a shred of doubt, in anyone’s mind about the importance of the GATT Round and particularly the importance that the British attach to it. We should have had an agreement by now, we have not got an agreement by now, it remains imperative that we get an agreement and we will push, and push, and push, until eventually some time later this year an agreement is reached, it must be, and the sooner the better.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Munich – 7 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Munich, held on Tuesday 7th July 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, the Americans are talking about a substantial new aid effort in Yugoslavia, would Britain join that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We had some general discussions last night about Yugoslavia but nothing concrete has been decided at all and I have no doubt we will return to that. But the principal topic of discussion this morning of course is the former Soviet Union.

    QUESTION:

    But on Yugoslavia.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have nothing to say about Yugoslavia at the moment, I am afraid, nothing whatsoever.

    QUESTION:

    What about GATT, there are reports that you are trying to unblock the log-jam, where do we stand now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think everyone would like to see some progress on the GATT agreement. Clearly if we wish to get world trade moving, the sooner we get a GATT agreement the better, and that is certainly a view that I have expressed and one that I will continue to express. But nobody should under-estimate the difficulties there are for some nations in actually securing an agreement. There is no chance of an agreement actually being reached over this weekend, there are many things and many interests not represented here. But I think what we can do is examine the difficulties, see which of those can best be unblocked most speedily and determine how we can go about that, and of course in private that is what we are all trying to do.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to raise this with President Mitterrand today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will have to raise a whole series of things with all the other Heads of Government, in a matter of discussion it will continue to be one, it would be surprising if we were not discussing that in the present circumstances.

    QUESTION:

    Would it be fair to say that you are now talking about delaying or slowing down the rate at which subsidies would be cut?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Subsidies for whom?

    QUESTION:

    In agricultural subsidies.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I am not going into the details of the discussions. I think there are three or four quite separate areas in GATT that still need to be determined and I strongly suspect they will only be determined collectively, they will not be picked off one by one.

    I am sure that conflicting interests will mean that that certainly is not the case. We will need a collective agreement which deals with all those matters at the same time, now at the moment they are being discussed. I do not think people should have expectations that it is all going suddenly and magically to be solved. It would be very agreeable if that could be the case but there are, as I say, many interests to be considered, many to be consulted, some not here at this particular summit. But I think it is an opportunity to examine the difficulties that exist and see if there is a better way to proceed to make sure we get the agreement we all know that we need and to get that agreement as speedily as possible.

    QUESTION:

    What will you say to many people in the West who say we have got rising unemployment, we have got economic difficulties, why on earth should we help the Russians who have been running a military state for so long?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a distinction between the difficulties that we face in the West, and they are real difficulties of course, and the difficulties that are faced in the former Soviet Union. They face the danger not of difficulties but of total, complete disintegration, chaos and collapse, that is the clear distinction. We, by we I mean the United Kingdom, have been offering special help for the former Soviet Union, especially Russia, and looking after their interests in negotiations with the IMF. We now have an agreement with the IMF and we will have the opportunity of discussing that this morning and discussing it further with Mr Yeltsin when he is here tomorrow. I think that will be a very valuable exchange.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 July 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Darwin Initiative

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 24 June, Official Report, columns 200-1, if he is now able to say what funding for the Darwin initiative will be; if he will make a statement on his plans to set up the initiative; how it will relate to the United States biodiversity project based in New York; what further action he plans to conserve biological diversity; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    We are asking interested parties to come forward with ideas on how best to develop a framework for the Darwin initiative and to set priorities for action. We will consider the appropriate level of funding once we have decided those priorities. The Darwin initiative is based on United Kingdom expertise in the field of biodiversity, but we will be looking at action which other countries are taking. In addition to launching this initiative I have also written to my EC and G7 colleagues urging them to take follow- up action to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, including taking forward the convention on biodiversity.

     

    Global Technology

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his speech at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, when he plans to hold the global technology partnership conference; where it will be held; who will be the invitees; which British companies will be involved; what discussions he held with British companies prior to announcing the conference; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    The technology partnership initiative will extend the work of the United Kingdom throughout the preparations for the Earth summit to promote the role of technology co-operation in achieving sustainable development. It will provide developing countries with the opportunity to gain direct access to information on environmentally sound technologies, know-how, best practices and case studies available in the United Kingdom and will open up direct channels of communication with British companies.

    The initiative will be launched by a conference and exhibition in the first half of 1993. Officials are currently working on the details of both. We propose to invite representatives of developing countries and to approach United Kingdom companies and others who have experience in providing environmental solutions for developing countries.

     

    Non-governmental Organisations

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister which non-governmental organisations he will be inviting to the global forum in June; if NGOs from developing nations will be involved in the preparation for the forum; where the forum will be held; what consultations he held with NGOs before announcing the forum; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    We are discussing the arrangements with non-governmental organisations. Overseas NGOs will be invited to attend and we expect them to be involved in the preparations.

     

    UNCED

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his speech at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, what extra amounts he intends to give to the following areas, stating for each over what time period the donation will be made and in what form (a) forestry conservation, (b) biodiversity, (c) energy efficiency, (d) population planning and (e) sustainable agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Rio, we are planning to make available substantial extra resources for these areas. New commitments will be made as part of the planning and management of our overseas aid programme.

     

    Debt Burden

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to reduce the debt burden on developing countries and extend the Trinidad terms to other G7 nations; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    The Government are fully committed to the agreed international debt strategy, and have given a strong lead in tackling the debt burden of the poorest and most heavily indebted countries. In addition to relieving developing countries of over $1 billion of aid loans, this Government have been responsible for both the Toronto and Trinidad initiatives. These were the first initiatives to result in the partial cancellation of the more substantial and burdensome debts owed by the poorest countries to export credit agencies.

    The Paris club began implementing Trinidad terms in December, and seven countries have already benefited. The agreed terms give a 50 per cent. reduction in debts falling due in the course of the debtor country’s IMF programme of economic reform, and commit creditors to consider reducing the whole stock of debt in three to four years’ time if the debtor keeps to its IMF and Paris club agreements. The Government hope that Trinidad terms can be further developed in the direction of our original proposals, which were for a benchmark figure of two thirds reduction applied immediately to the whole stock of debt. It would also be an important step forward if all creditors, without exception, were to implement debt reduction under Trinidad terms.

     

    Next Steps Agencies

    Mr. Higgins : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that (a) letters from hon. Members to Ministers concerning next steps agencies which are concerned with political rather than administrative or commercial matters and (b) letters concerning the planning inspectorate will be replied to by Ministers and not chief executives.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    The Government’s policy on dealing with letters from hon. Members on agency matters was most recently set out in the Government’s reply to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee’s 1990 report on the next steps initiative, Cm 1263, which said :

    “It is for Ministers responsible for particular Agencies to respond in the way they consider most helpful and appropriate to inquiries raised by Members. Ministers will normally ask the Chief Executive to reply to letters which concern day-to-day operational matters delegated to the Agency”.

     

    Royal British Legion (Training Centre)

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 June, Official Report, column 620, if he will make it his policy for any grant from PERIFRA II in respect of the Royal British Legion’s bid for the establishment of a training centre at Tidworth, for the purpose of giving specific training to service personnel and dependants for employment in civilian life, to be treated as additional to the Ministry of Defence existing budget, to the extent necessary; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    The matter will be dealt with in accordance with the arrangements for grants from the European regional development fund set out in my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade’s statement of 30 June at columns 525-26.

     

    Subsidiarity

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on applying the principle of subsidiarity to the work of local government within the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    It is for Parliament to decide on the distribution of functions between central and local government.

     

    Intervention Wheat

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister how many tonnes of common wheat held in intervention by the European Commission to which he referred in his answer of 25 July 1991, Official Report, column 782, were released as emergency food and (a) in 1990 and (b) in 1991 and in each half of 1991 and (c) in the first half of 1992; and what is the predicted level for the whole of the current year.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Aid will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information requested is available from the European Commission.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 7 July.

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    Child Health

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer on 24 June, Official Report, column 219, if he will make a statement on the implementation of declaration 76 of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare in October 1991, relating to the framework for collaboration to put children first, particularly through co-operation programmes devised to enhance health and literacy levels among children; what priority is being given to enhancing child health in the developing countries in Commonwealth programmes; and what funding has been allocated to these programmes.

    Mr. Newton [holding answer 2 July 1992] : I have been asked to reply.

    Paragraph 76 of the Harare declaration endorses the declaration and plan of action of the survival, protection and development of children adopted by the World Summit for Children, which we support. The commitments undertaken at the summit to improve child health and security and to develop appropriate education are already among the basic concerns of the British aid programme.

    We are making a significant contribution through our aid programme of some £45 million a year to health and population programmes in Commonwealth countries. A breakdown of the likely beneficiaries between adults and children is not available, but a considerable proportion of this assistance will directly benefit child health.

  • PMQT – 7 July 1992

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Hastings and Rye

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

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

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

     

    European Community

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Question !

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

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

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

    JOINT STATEMENT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION (Finnish Broadcasting Company):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Peter Bale, Reuters):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    MR MIYAZAWA:

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

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds, BBC):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (TASS):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    MR MIYAZAWA:

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

    QUESTION (Peter Norman, FT):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    1. DELORS:

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

    QUESTION (Jackie Ashley, ITN):

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

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

    QUESTION (Reuters):

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

    MR MIYAZAWA:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (David Langton – Bureau of National Affairs):

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    1. DELORS:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I like your definition of a simple question!

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

    [Not translated].

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MR MIYAZAWA:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    MR MULRONEY:

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

    [In French, not translated].

    MR MULRONEY:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    MR MULRONEY:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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