The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1992

  • Mr Major’s Statement at Meeting with Visegrad Group – 28 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening statement at the meeting with the Visegrad Group, held at Lancaster House in London on Wednesday 28th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    May I firstly welcome you all to Lancaster House, there are some old friends and some new friends here today but you are all equally welcome and I hope that we will have a useful and productive conference.

    I do not think there is any doubt at all that we can claim that today is an historic occasion. It is the first time that the leaders of the Visegrad countries have met with the Presidency and with the Commission. I fervently hope it will not be the last and that what we are doing today is beginning a trend that will continue.

    Just a few years ago, perhaps even as recently as four years ago, a meeting of this sort would frankly have been unthinkable, it could not have been arranged, and this meeting is essentially a mark of the revolution that has taken place firstly in your countries and your societies and secondly in our relations with your countries. And it follows of course the very successful meeting which Foreign Ministers had in Luxembourg in early October.

    Let me tell you something about the housekeeping arrangements for the day and how I propose to conduct the business. I would propose that our discussions this morning should fall into two separate parts. Firstly, we should focus ourselves on relations between your countries and the European Community. In particular I think we should consider how the association agreements, the Europe agreements, call them whichever you wish, we should focus on those and how they might be developed and we will also need of course to deal with the question of accession. I think we can also consider financial cooperation and our political dialogue between the Visegrad countries and the Community.

    We will then break for coffee, after which the Paymaster General will invite Finance Ministers and Mr Christopherson from the Commission to join him for a separate discussion. This meeting will then resume to discuss current international issues. We need to look at Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union both before lunch and I think that discussion runs naturally into the discussion that we will have over lunch as well.

    As you will all know, The Queen has graciously agreed to receive Heads of delegations at 12:40. We need to leave for that meeting promptly at 12:20. Pre-lunch drinks will take place in the drawing room while lunch itself will be in two separate groups. I will have lunch with the Heads of Delegation in the Gold Room on the ground floor, we will make sure you are all safely escorted there, whilst the Foreign Secretary and the Paymaster General will host lunch for other Ministers and senior officials in the State dining room. And M. Attali, the President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, has also been invited to join Heads of Delegation for lunch.

    I would suggest that at the end of lunch the Heads of Delegation should join me in a short press briefing in the State drawing room. I will talk to the press on that occasion on the basis of our Presidency conclusions which our officials have already discussed and which we have already agreed, and I hope that will be acceptable. And I understand you all then will be going to the European Bank for a meeting with M. Attali.
    So if that is satisfactory as the way to conduct business for the day, let me move directly to the state of our relations and say just a few words about those before we commence on wider matters.

    We meet at the moment half way through the British Presidency of the Community at a time of tremendous change in Europe, not just Western Europe but right across the whole continent of Europe, tremendous changes internally in individual countries and externally across Europe as a whole. And if you look back at some of the problems that have been there to be faced in recent months – the Danish referendum saying ‘No’; the very high French negative vote, despite the final success of their referendum; turmoil in the currency markets; countries forced out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism by sheer market pressures against their will – all that has happened in the turbulent few weeks that has just passed.

    But we are back on course as a Community. The Birmingham European Council I believe was a very significant milestone, a completely harmonious summit which steadied the ship and opened the way for the challenges that we face and must meet at Edinburgh and conclude before Christmas.

    There were I think two important messages that emerged from Birmingham, both of those messages should be reassuring to each of the countries represented here today. Firstly, the Community is working together, it is unified and it is determined to press on with the challenging agenda it has set itself. And internally that means three things: it means pressing ahead with ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, the Danes are showing us the way through their problems, the British Government is determined to complete its ratification procedures as soon as feasible and other partners will do so later this year; secondly, we are now almost there with the single market, by 1st January we will be there, the biggest, most powerful single market in the world will be fully in place; and thirdly, we are completing our internal review of financing, including a cohesion fund for our southern member states. I will be seeking conclusions at Edinburgh which will set a sound framework for the Community’s finances for the next half a decade or more.

    But the second message that emerged from Birmingham is that the Community is a changing Community as well as being a stable Community, a flexible one reacting to public opinion. Attitudes in Europe are changing. Maastricht is the first evidence of this, providing the first treaty recognition of subsidiarity, of cooperation between member states outside the Treaty of Rome, as well as deepening the treaty process within the Treaty of Rome. So the Birmingham Declaration will move things on a little further, a declaration committing ail member states to respect national identity and to decentralise decision-making wherever possible.

    And that, in my judgment, is what actually makes for the uniqueness of the European Community, we have to get the right mixture between cooperation, a joint endeavour within a framework of international legal obligations and respect for national cultures and national decision-making. The British Presidency provides an opportunity for the United Kingdom to play its part in getting that mixture right.

    The truth that we must face in the United Kingdom, and I believe in all our countries is quite clear cut, national states alone can no longer face all the challenges that we face. But we cannot create that new Europe without taking our citizens with us, that is the first lesson of democracy that all of us are well aware of. And that element of democracy, that essence of democracy, is the single strongest bond between all of our member states. That is so within the Community and I believe that that is also the case in your countries as well, it is why today we are able to sit together around the table. It is also why Britain is pressing for the closest possible cooperation between the Community and between each of the states represented here today, leading ultimately, ultimately, to membership of the Community when the other details are right.

    There is just a third message that I will mention very briefly. The European Community does need to be an outward-looking Community, open to trade with third countries, open to new members, a Community that is a liberal force in international trade and committed to playing its part in the affairs of our continent. We have many things to discuss today and I want to spend most of my time listening to what you have to say, so I will say no more at this moment and we will perhaps move to many of the matters we need to discuss.

    I think it would be appropriate to open our discussions this morning by inviting the President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, to say a few words on the relationships between the Visegrad countries and the Community, focusing perhaps on Europe agreements, financial cooperation and technical assistance and I will invite M. Delors to open that debate, I will then seek some remarks by Heads of Delegations and then we will carry the discussion forward.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Jacques Delors and Prime Ministers from Visegrad Group – 28 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Jacques Delors and the Prime Ministers of the Visegrad Group. The press conference was held in London on Wednesday 28th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Perhaps on behalf of President Delors and myself I can welcome again our guests from Hungary, Poland, the Czechlands and Slovakia for this historic first meeting in Lancaster House. Just four years ago a meeting of this sort would have been thought, and would have been, wholly incredible.

    Today we have had the opportunity to discuss a whole range of issues largely connected with the relationship between these countries and the European Community both in the short term and the long term ambitions that we have in the Community and that the countries have for eventual full membership of the European Community.

    What I think our meeting has demonstrated today is the Community’s support for the new democracies of central and Eastern Europe, it symbolises the wish that we have to work together with them to build a strong relationship.

    We have agreed a joint declaration of the Community and its member states and Hungary, Poland, the Czechlands and Slovakia and there is also a joint statement from the President of the Commission and from me. Both documents will be available to you but let me just explain the background for the meeting and mention a few key points.

    For the countries present who see the European Community as the cornerstone of their restored place in Europe, this meeting has provided an opportunity to make their case for early accession to the European Community. All the countries present have certain things in common, they all share a common commitment to democracy, to human rights, to market economies and to liberal trade. And to underpin these the Community have given technical assistance and where appropriate balance of payments assistance through the Group of 24.

    But I think all of us recognised that more was needed. The Community therefore signed association, sometimes called Europe agreements, offering open markets and cooperation backed up by technical assistance. Trade liberalisation has already begun and it has been agreed that we will discuss further measures later this year. All of us present recognised the importance of free trade. The Community is determined to make a success of the Europe Agreements, to develop them, to improve them and to help prepare the countries represented here today for eventual full membership.

    What we have considered today are ways to give substance to the agreements and how to help the countries towards membership, we have also looked at specific ways to strengthen practical cooperation under the agreements. We have therefore agreed a number of proposals: proposals for assistance to help achieve a free trade area between the countries; proposals for encouraging links between our local communities and democratic institutions; proposals for giving managerial, industrial and training experience in the Community to managers from each of the countries present; and stronger links between the European Parliament and the parliaments of each country here today.

    The Commission has been invited to report to Edinburgh with further ideas for developing cooperation. We have also had useful discussions between the Foreign Ministers on Yugoslavia and between Heads of Government on the former Soviet Union. The joint declaration on political dialogue formalises regular discussions between us on major international issues. This is the first time we have institutionalised such an agreement and I think it will be an important move forward for everyone who will take part in those discussions.

    Let me finally just add a personal note to our discussions today. The Community went through a turbulent period in the run-up to the French referendum. Since then however the Birmingham summit, the recent agreements reached in Denmark and today’s meetings all demonstrate that the Community is now getting back on the path to a more open, outward looking future. I very much hope and expect that we will be able to consolidate this progress at the Edinburgh Council in December.

    QUESTION (Polish TV):

    I have a question for the Polish Prime Minister. Are you satisfied with the result of this summit?

    MS SUCHOCRA:

    I want to say that yes I am satisfied with every meeting of what is called the Visegrad Group of countries, every meeting that takes place between the Visegrad Group and the European Community countries. I do feel that every step forward, every step towards reaching the European Community is of the greatest possible importance to us. Today’s meeting proved to be of very great importance because indeed we managed to make it quite clear what are the dangers, the threats, that do exist on each side with regard to our joining the Community. I feel that such meetings should be continued in the future and we on our part suggested that the next meeting of a similar type, that is between the European Community and the Visegrad Group, should be attended by Ministers of Transport, of Environment and of Finances to discuss matters that are of importance to them.

    QUESTION (Radio Free Europe):

    Prime Minister Major and M. Delors, the German Foreign Minister, Klaus Kinkel, on Monday said that the conflict over Gabcikovo Nagymaros could endanger the goodwill of the EC concerning economic support for Eastern Europe, do you two share these sentiments?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a matter that is under discussion at the moment, it will stay under discussion and I hope it is a matter we will be able speedily to reach an agreement with. It is clearly complex, it is clearly very important, but I have no doubt that with satisfactory goodwill on all sides we will actually get an agreement. Let me say we have had meetings chaired by the Commission that have been taking place in London in the last 24 hours. We have made some progress, meetings are continuing as we speak. I hope the parties may, may, be able to reach agreement today on a process that will reach a settlement. There will not be an agreement today but I hope we may be able to reach agreement on a process that will lead onwards towards a settlement.

    So we have not wasted our time on the difficult problem of the Gabcikovo Dam today, there has been a good deal of discussion amongst officials and also some discussion amongst Heads of Government as well. It is a dispute which has threatened relations between countries whose developing ties with the Community we are marking at today’s summit. So I am very pleased therefore if the summit has helped to achieve progress and so far as one can tell at the moment it has helped, though we are not there.

    QUESTION (Hungarian News Agency):

    Is there any opportunity that you might come up by the Edinburgh summit with some approximate tentative timetable of the integration of the central European countries to the EC and with the qualitative conditions of their integration? Can you imagine any more formalisation, formal political security membership of these countries in the EC than the political dialogue before tackling the more intricate question of total integration involving the economic side?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We spent some time today discussing the question of eventual accession of the countries present. There should be no doubt that that is the objective, the association, the European agreements are a stepping stone towards it but is a stepping stone towards an objective of full membership of the European Community. What we are in process of doing at the moment is making an assessment of precisely what that means and that assessment is being prepared by the Commission and will be presented for discussion amongst the Twelve at the Edinburgh summit. What may spring immediately from that I am not sure, I cannot promise a timetable springing from that.

    What I think is going to be much clearer is the criteria that are necessary for membership and that is a point that was specifically asked for by a number of the Prime Ministers present here today that we should set out as clearly as possible what the criteria will be so that it is more possible to determine domestic policies and also assess progress towards full membership. So that is the way we would propose to deal with it up to and at Edinburgh. Beyond Edinburgh of course we will need further consultation in order to take the matter further.

    QUESTION:

    I have a couple of questions, one to Prime Minister Major and one to the Polish Prime Minister. Mr Major, we understand there was a discussion of the matter of the cooperation between the EC and the Visegrad Group but will you be bringing to the Edinburgh summit any concrete definite proposals specifically in the economic cooperation area? And to the Polish Prime Minister, I understand that there was at least a couple of economic requests or hopes that Poland had regarding a one billion ecu grant and also finance for some structural projects, have you been able to make any progress today with these two requests?

    MS SUCHOCKA:

    My answer is very simple because this problem has not been discussed during the plenary meeting today, maybe it will be discussed during the meeting of the Ministers of Finance so I think the better response will come from the Minister of Finance. The problem was discussed during our visit to Brussels and I think that M. Delors [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first part of the question you will find part of the answer of course in the statement from President Delors and myself in which we talked both about specific measures that help and also about the Europe agreements. Beyond that of course we would need to develop matters within the Community through ECOFIN and in further discussion, but that is a process that we are engaged upon, whether the process will be concluded by Edinburgh I cannot yet say.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC):

    Prime Minister, in your opening statement you talked about the Community getting back on path, are you now confident that the Danish demands can be successfully negotiated without having to renegotiate the Maastricht Treaty itself or do you accept that may only become clear at the Edinburgh summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a danger of a semantic misunderstanding. I have now seen an advance copy of the papers that Denmark will make available to people tomorrow and will present formally to many Community members next week. The Danes are not asking for a renegotiation of what is in the Maastricht Treaty. What they will be asking for are some additions and clarifications to the treaty and we will attempt to reach a framework for agreeing that at Edinburgh. I have not yet had a chance to study all they have to say in detail for I only saw the document a few hours ago. But I am clear upon several points. There is no intention of renegotiating the treaty itself, there are clarifications that the Danes require to the treaty, that the Danes make it clear they want to move towards a second referendum so that they may ratify the treaty.

    The other point upon which I am clear though I have had no chance to consult other European members of the Community today is that there is a great will amongst the Community to seek an agreement that will enable Denmark to ratify the treaty, but I will be able to respond in more detail to your question when I have had a proper time to study the documentation and I have not had that yet.

    QUESTION (Czechoslovak News Agency):

    I have a question to the Czech Prime Minister. Are you satisfied with the level of trade between central and Eastern European countries and the European Community and how would you judge the progress made here in London?

    CZECH PRIME MINISTER:

    Whether I am satisfied or not with the volume of trade between my country and the European Community it is not that relevant, that trade is low and it is in the interest of our businesses and of the businesses of the EC to increase the volume of trade. The problem is what the governments can do, what the institutions like the EC can do and in this respect definitely we need to liberalise trade, we need to dismantle the existing barriers and we echoed the issues this morning during our discussions and I am pretty sure that the discussions were very useful in explaining many things between us and I hope we will take it into consideration in the future and some progress will be done.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson – ITN):

    Prime Minister, you are effectively talking here about enlarging the Community but the Danes are in effect, are they not, questioning the new rules? Would it not be better for you in this country to put off ratification of the Maastricht Treaty until the Danish position at the very least becomes clear?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What is an ambition of British foreign policy and I think right the way across the Community for some years has been the enlargement of the European Community, the enlargement to the EFTAn countries Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria, and then beyond that, the enlargement to Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Czechlands and Slovakia.

    We want that for a series of reasons. We want it firstly because we think it is economically desirable to enlarge the size of the Community but also because we think it is desirable in strategic, military, political and other terms to enlarge a free open market and to enlarge an area in which there is general and complete security. It is the extension and security of democracy in the Community.

    If I may draw your minds back a few years, it is not all that many years ago when we were actually wondering whether Spain and Portugal would be safe for democracy or whether they would slip back into some form of totalitarian regime. The more we can widen the Community, the more we will be able to ensure democracy extends itself further across Europe. That is good for the security of everyone in Europe and it is also good for the economic well-being of people across Europe.

    One criterion that is necessary in practical terms for the extension of the Community is the agreement to the treaty that was agreed at Maastricht. That is going to be a necessary preliminary to enlargement. I want, therefore, for that reason and for other reasons to see the treaty agreed and then for us to proceed to enlargement. I do believe enlargement is not just a matter of domestic political interest; it is of very wide-ranging historical interest that we are actually able to achieve that and I think we do need to lift people’s eyes to the wider vision that actually sits there and is a good deal more important than many of the details that appear either in the Maastricht Treaty or indeed in any other European treaty we have signed.

    QUESTION (Polish Press Agency):

    Prime Minister Major, I would like to ask you, Sir, to clarify one point. You used the words “eventual accession” or “eventual membership”. How far is it certain in the Declaration, please?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the implication, the presupposition, is that as soon as the applicant countries are ready to join the Community, the Community will be prepared to accept them. That is the presupposition. What we can’t at this moment do is put a precise timetable to that and that is not just the Community being difficult. There are very relevant economic circumstances that suggest that any country joining the Community needs to be economically ready to join the Community because the moment it does so, it is exposed to the full market forces that exist within the Community. That is the real reason for making sure that applicants are economically ready.

    The purpose of the Association Agreements and the political dialogue and cooperation is to assist in bringing every applicant country into a position where it can become a full member of the Community but I can’t put a date to “eventually” at this stage. When we can, we will but it is impossible yet.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Major, you promised the House of Commons last month that you would not bring the Maastricht ratification legislation back to the House until you had a clear definition, a settled order of subsidiarity in place and the Danes had a basis on which they could put the Treaty back to their electorate. Neither precondition has yet been satisfied. Why have you dumped that commitment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that that is accurate. You quote from the third paragraph. There are several paragraphs in the speech; if you read them all collectively, you will see that what we had in mind was knowing how people are going to proceed. We do know how the Danes are now going to proceed and we will have to proceed as well as the Danes do. We will have to proceed in parallel. Our parliamentary procedures are very lengthy and very complex, perhaps as lengthy and complex as anybody in the Community. We now know how the Danes are going to proceed. I think that is right.

    As far as subsidiarity is concerned, we have made quite a lot of progress. In fact, since I made the statement that you quote, at the Birmingham summit we reached for the first time a clear-cut political declaration upon subsidiarity together with an agreement that we would reach firm decisions on subsidiarity at the Edinburgh summit. That isn’t just a British ambition. The Commission are working on detailed proposals at the moment, so are the Presidency, so are a number of individual member states so all these matters are proceeding in parallel and I think are proceeding quite satisfactorily.

    QUESTION (BBC World Service):

    I would like to ask a question of the Hungarian Prime Minister. Mr. Antall, you referred in your speech and during the conference to the fact that Hungary would like to be a member state of the European Community by the end of this decade. I would like to ask you what is the basis of your optimism?

    ANTALL:

    Hungary has obtained the associate status, that is we have signed the Association Agreement. Austria, Sweden and some EFTA countries will probably become fully-fledged members by the mid-90s and I think the criteria which Prime Minister Major and President Delors referred to and the criteria we have ourselves proposed will have to take shape first and they will set the sort of conditions which each of the applicant countries will have to satisfy. For this reason, we do not emphasise years or dates, be it 1996, 1997 or whichever other year. What is more important for us is to consider the internal development within the Community, for example the Maastricht Agreement, and at the same time we also have to consider our own development so that they converge by the end of the decade and this is the basis for my optimism.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can I ask you on a personal level, if you did lose next week’s vote on Maastricht, would you stay on as Prime Minister or would you call a general election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that we are going to lose the vote next week. When one looked at the Second Reading of the Maastricht Bill there was a huge majority in the House of Commons for the Bill. I know there has been something of a furore in one way or another about various matters but I think the substantive position of Britain’s position in Europe and the importance of that and the relationship of the Maastricht Treaty to that is becoming increasingly understood.

    I think for a variety of reasons people have concentrated on the things that Britain did not agree to in Maastricht – the fact that we would not sign up to a single currency for reasons I have recently explained and that we did not agree to a Social Chapter – and because that has been the subject of principal discussion in the United Kingdom, an assumption has grown out of that that the Maastricht Treaty is wholly negative for the United Kingdom and that we are just concerned about what we get out of it. But that is not true and there are some matters in there that are very positive and of very great importance to the United Kingdom. Let me perhaps illustrate them for you.

    For the first time ever we have got written into a European treaty a method of cooperation between member states on an intergovernmental basis outside the Treaty of Rome, outside the jurisdiction of the European Court and outside the competence of the Commission. That is a wholly new and, from the British point of view, benevolent way in which the Community can develop.

    Secondly, we have been able to circumscribe some of the ways in which the European Court of Justice was able to get creeping competence with its Court judgments by clarifying precisely what responsibilities they have.

    Thirdly, although it is a dreadful jargon word and I know that, the reality of what subsidiarity means is that it will bring many decisions much closer to the people who are affected by them and as I indicated a moment ago in an earlier answer, we will have a detailed menu of subsidiarity provisions before us at Edinburgh for decisions to be made by all the Heads of Government and that was agreed at Birmingham.

    That is an illustration of the positive points in the Maastricht Treaty that are relevant for the United Kingdom and welcome to the United Kingdom and have been elements of policy that have been sought for many years.

    QUESTION (Polish Section of BBC):

    Delors, we heard a few minutes ago a fairly clear commitment from Mr. Major towards eventual membership of the Visegrad Three countries to the EC and another commitment to enlargement. Could we hear a similar commitment from you, M. Delors?

    DELORS:

    Yes, absolutely! No problem. It is a question of efficiency but first the Commission is at the service of the Community and not the contrary and under the leadership of the British Presidency the Commission is asked for a report at Edinburgh on the criteria for further enlargement to the Eastern and Southern European countries and we must work on this point. Personally, I am very much in favour of the enlargement of the Community – there is no doubt about that.

    QUESTION (George Jones – Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, on the Danish question, if the Danes succeed in securing additional clauses or opt-outs tacked onto the Treaty, particularly on the question of European citizenship, will you seek to get them extended to Britain as a way of reassuring your own backbenchers and other people who are concerned about the Maastricht process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the question of citizenship, the particular illustration you give, is one that was a pretty significant factor in the Danish referendum, people were very concerned about that.

    As was made clear, of course, in the Declarations at the Birmingham summit there is no question of any citizen of the Community losing the citizenship of their domestic country. A Danish citizen will remain a Danish citizen, a British citizen will remain British.

    The essence of what was regarded as European citizenship was twofold: firstly, that it was subsidiary – it did not affect the citizenship of the individual country; and secondly, it was there simply to illustrate the fact that everyone in the European Community, irrespective of their citizenship, was entitled to certain benefits by virtue of being a member of the European Community.

    So it is not a matter of huge importance except emotionally where I think some people have feared that a European citizenship would subsume the individual citizenship of member states. There is no question of that happening. There is no question of the British, the French, the Germans or any other member state in the Community ever being other than a citizen of the country that they are a citizen of now.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to ask a question of Mr. Meciar and Mr. Klaus. Do you still have the strong commitment that you would like to go to the European Community together – that is the first part of my question. The second part is are you ready to go to Krakow in November and make this meeting successful?

    KLAUS:

    As regards the first question which means whether we want to join the European Community together, this is for me the future which I don’t want to forecast. We know that we have to prepare ourselves for being equal partners among European countries and whether it will be the same day or the next day is absolutely irrelevant for us just now.

    As you probably know, we succeeded two days ago in signing some fifteen treaties within the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic, somehow building the basic stones for future cooperation between the two countries and we hope the cooperation will be successful. We will try to minimise losing the benefits of the mutual economic space on the territory of the current Czechoslovakia. In this respect, I am quite optimistic and quite confident and I hope Mr. Meciar as well.

    As regards the November meeting in Krakow, we will have to think about it because it is difficult now to sign something on behalf of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republics and I am not pretty sure whether in November we shall be able to sign it on behalf of the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic so we are not in a hurry to do it just now because of technical and legislative reasons, not because of the substance of the Treaty.

    MECIAR:

    We handed out our memorandum where we claim that we take on the commitments of the Czechoslovak treaties. Concerning quotas, we handed out agreement that the quotas will be divided between the two republics. Now the question is how the European Community will approach this. We don’t find it necessary that all the conditions that were already reviewed be reviewed again.

    The agreement in Poland which will negotiate some issues of closer cooperation of the Visegrad Four countries is the subject of review but the Slovak Republic is not prepared in November to sign this agreement even though we find it is a very important document.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 27 October 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Appointments

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the names of public appointments that he has made, giving the period for which the appointment was made, relevant qualifications of the appointees and what remuneration each currently receives.

    The Prime Minister : As I told the hon. Member on 13 June 1991, Official Report, column 663, in answer to a similar question, this information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

     

    Housing Associations

    Ms. Walley : To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to representations from the National Federation of Housing Associations about the retention of the £2 billion grant for housing associations ; and if he will make it his policy that no cuts in expenditure will be made to the budget for the west midlands.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) wrote to me on 15 October, enclosing a letter which he had received from the chairman of the west midlands regional council of the National Federation of Housing Associations (NFHA). My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment replied on my behalf.

    The Government cannot comment on the outcome of the public expenditure survey, which will be announced in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s “Autumn Statement”. The Government have shown their commitment to housing associations as the main providers of new social housing by increasing resources for the Housing Corporation from £935 million in 1989-90 to over £1,700 million in 1992-93.

    Next year resources will be allocated among the Housing Corporation’s regions in accordance with the housing needs indicator, which is agreed by the Department of the Environment, the Housing Corporation and the NFHA.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

     

    Pit Closures

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister in agreeing to the pit closures what account he took of the effect on competitiveness of the changes in exchange rate between the pound and the dollar; and if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1970 (a) the relative unit value of United Kingdom exports compared with those of the United States of America in each year based on the second half of 1973 equals 100 and the fourth quarter of 1986 equals 100, (b) the world price of coal in terms of dollars and (c) an index of freight rates from (i) the United States of America, (ii) Australia and (iii) the contract price for United Kingdom coal delivered to power stations.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 October 1992] : The competitiveness of British-mined coal was considered at a range of pound : dollar exchange rates. The other information requested cannot be supplied in the time available and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will write to the hon. Member.

     

    Middle East

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy during his visit to Egypt on 23 October to raise with President Mubarak Israel’s nuclear capability and the danger of nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 26 October 1992] : I discussed a number of middle east security matters with President Mubarak. I did not discuss Israel’s nuclear potential.

  • PMQT – 27 October 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Watson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Mr. Watson : As the Prime Minister bobbles about helplessly in a sea of chaos, has he noticed the latest damning evidence of economic decline in today’s Confederation of British Industry review, yet one of last week’s U- turns–just one of them–promised economic growth? Before he finally slips beneath the surface, will the Prime Minister tell us what, if anything, he will do to prevent recession from turning into slump?

    The Prime Minister : In the time that he spent preparing that question, the hon. Gentleman clearly did not read all of the CBI quarterly survey. If he had done, he would have seen output expectations up on September, export optimism up on July, the domestic prices balance at an all-time low and, for the first time ever, the balance of firms reporting unit costs actually being reduced. As to improving economic circumstances, the hon. Gentleman should note what has been done. Interest rates have been cut 11 times in two years. They are the lowest interest rates in Europe, and British firms also face the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe.

    Mr. William Powell : My right hon. Friend will be aware of how welcome the declaration of the London summit on the conference on Yugoslavia was in relation to the war crimes that are taking place in Yugoslavia and also the subsequent action taking place at the United Nations. Unfortunately, of course, there is no permanent machinery for trying war crimes, although the General Assembly of the United Nations has been discussing such permanent machinery. Will my right hon. Friend encourage his colleagues in the Government to take a more constructive approach towards establishing such permanent machinery?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly content to give my hon. Friend that assurance. This was a matter that was raised at the London summit on Yugoslavia some time ago, and as a result of that, the whole matter is being examined in the United Nations.

    Mr. John Smith : Could the Prime Minister explain how he takes comfort from a CBI survey which predicts that jobs will be down, output will be down, orders will be down, investment will be down and confidence will be down? Will he answer the question that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson)? What action will he take to stop a slump?

    The Prime Minister : For the second successive Question Time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to listen to an answer already given. If he had listened more carefully he would have heard what I said about output expectations, export optimism, the domestic prices balance and the balance of firms reporting unit costs actually falling. He would also know that manufacturing output has risen in each of the first two quarters, that car production was up sharply in September, and that retail sales have been up in both the second and third quarters.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that the complacency of that answer will shock the public? Does he not realise that the British public are now sick and tired of failed economic policies as well as bogus economic promises of recovery which are never ever fulfilled?

    The Prime Minister : Throughout the last three years the economic policy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been the same as ours, but 1 per cent. less off interest rates. Exactly the same. His commitment to the central part of our economic policy was total and frequently stated. He always wanted lower interest rates. Will he now bear it in mind that we have the lowest interest rates in the European Economic Community–lower than we have had for a long time–and that there is no economic policy whatever from the Opposition?

    Sir James Kilfedder : May I, as one who voted against the Government in the crucial Division last week on the pit closures and was opposed by a Tory candidate in the general election, from my critical position of independence congratulate the Prime Minister on the brave determination that he has shown–history will commend him for it–to put the United Kingdom at the heart of Europe? Will he take the opportunity as often as possible to spell out in simple terms to the people of this country the consequences, particularly for jobs, if Britain is left on the sidelines of Europe?

    The Prime Minister : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has had to say. Let me say this on the European Community and the Government’s policy. I believe that we have had three historic mistakes over the last 30 years in European policy. [Interruption.] The first was when we failed to join the Community at the outset. The second was when twice other countries refused to accept Britain into the European Community. They were mistakes of great damage, to not just this country but the whole of the European Community. Today, with the possibility of enlargement through the changing policies in Europe, we have more of a chance than ever we have had before of building a European Community in the image that we in this country wish to see. It would be folly at this stage to throw that away by isolating ourselves in the Community and by ending our influence. That is the way that the sort of Community we do not wish to see–not the sort of Community that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been fighting for for some years–comes about.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister not realise that the terrible damage done to his credibility and that of his Government by his foolish manoeuvrings over the last week have undermined the case for Europe, for which there is a majority in the House, as well as delaying the chance of recovery, for which there is such desperate need in the nation?

    The Prime Minister : What undermines the case for Europe is the manoeuvrings of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) as well as the manoeuvrings of the right hon. Gentleman himself.

    Mr. Roger Evans : Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that legislation will be introduced at an early date to strengthen the law against the curse of new-age travellers?

    The Prime Minister : There seems to be some competition for legislation to be introduced in the House. We are examining the particular difficulties created by new-age travellers, and I hope that at the end of that examination we will be able to produce legislation to protect those who suffer from their activities.

     

    Q2. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Mr. Illsley : The Prime Minister will recall that last Wednesday members of his Government said that there would be a meaningful, genuine, statutory 90-day review of the 10 collieries earmarked for closure. Bearing in mind the fact that there is no such thing as a statutory 90-day review, and that most of those collieries are now closed, does the Prime Minister accept that the House was apparently misled?

    The Prime Minister : I shall reiterate to the hon. Gentleman what I said myself on the subject of the 10 pits. I made it perfectly clear then that the 10 pits that have no economic future will go through the full statutory review procedure. I made it equally clear that the Government would co-operate with the inquiry by the Trade and Industry Select Committee and that the President of the Board of Trade will give evidence if that is required.

    Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will never allow the EC to impose on us by the back door the social chapter that the Labour party would impose on us by the front door? Will he also confirm that he will fight for British interests and jobs in Euope, as he has always done?

    The Prime Minister : I can most certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Before I went to the negotiations on the Maastricht treaty I indicated to the House that I would not come back having accepted a single currency being imposed on this House, and equally, that I would not accept the social chapter. I honoured both of those commitments and I propose to keep to them.

     

    Q3. Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Mr. Barnes : A sales manager of British Coal, Alan Aitken, has told customers that supplies will be supplemented by imports during the period of the pit closures. This is a disgrace. How much will be added to these imports by the agreement that the Prime Minister made with the Colombian authorities about the importation from that country of coal that is produced with the help of child labour?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is clearly reading the wrong articles, for what he has had to say is rubbish. I made no offer to stop British Coal’s anti-dumping complaint. Nor did I in any way reach the sort of agreement that the hon. Gentleman suggests with the Colombian authorities–not at any stage. Since I spend a lot of my time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, seeking an agreement on GATT, it is hardly likely that I would support dumping.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Angela Knight : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Mrs. Knight : Does my right hon. Friend agree that not even the French farmers would benefit from a world trade war? Will he confirm that he will continue to pursue an early conclusion of the GATT round, which will be good for developing countries, good for Britain–including companies in my constituency of Erewash–and even good for France?

    The Prime Minister : I can most certainly confirm that. The reality is that everybody would lose out from a trade war, including France and everybody who lives in France. In the last few days I have been in touch with the Americans and with leaders throughout the European Community to urge an early resumption of talks between the Community and the United States, both on a GATT agreement and on ending the dispute about oil seeds. I am glad to say that the two sides are in touch again and the United States is holding off from taking trade retaliation. We must seek an agreement both to end the dispute over oil seeds and a comprehensive agreement on the Uruguay round as speedily as possible. On the substantive point of my hon. Friend’s question about benefits, it would produce £120 billion worth of extra world output were we to have a successful GATT outcome.

    Mr. Cunliffe : Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that he may be out next week on 90 days’ notice, without statutory review? Will he bear with me while I relate to him the humiliating experience, which is causing great distress, that miners at Parkside colliery suffered on Friday? They were told to report to the pit every day for 90 days but that they were forbidden to go down the mine. Will the Prime Minister condemn this unspeakable behaviour and have words about it with the chairman of British Coal?

    The Prime Minister : I shall examine the case that the hon. Gentleman sets out and I shall see for myself what the facts are.

     

    Q5. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) should not behave in that way.

    Mr. Amess : Is my right hon. Friend aware that mortgage interest rates for first-time buyers are now at their lowest level for 25 years? Does he agree that that will have the effect of putting more money in people’s pockets so that they can spend it on goods in the high street and thereby help our economic recovery? Does he further agree that that is very good news for home buyers throughout the country and particularly for my constituents in Basildon?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has the most famous constituents in the western world and I can confirm that the very substantial reductions in mortgage rates will help them a great deal. It will also make a significant difference to the amount of money available for high street purchases, though of course the central point is that each 1 per cent. off interest rates is worth £1 billion a year to industry, and that is vital for investment, for future prosperity and for jobs.

    Dr. Kim Howells : Can the Prime Minister confirm that doubts about the future of the hugely important Al Yamamah defence deal, which the British Government have signed with the Saudis, increase day by day and parallel the decline in the influence of his predecessor, Baroness Thatcher? Will he confirm that interest in that deal increases as it looks as though his predecessor may be making a comeback, along with that grease-palming son of hers [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. [Interruption.] We want a question from the hon. Member.

    Dr. Howells : That was my question, Madam Speaker.

    The Prime Minister : I refute the hon. Gentleman’s distasteful remarks about my noble Friend. As for the Al Yamamah contract, there is no doubt that the Saudi commitment to Al Yamamah remains as strong as it has been for many years. That has been stressed to the Secretary of State for Defence and directly to me by the king.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 26 October 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Environment Policy

    Mr. Dafis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish an interdepartmental co-ordinating committee to monitor the environmental impact of EC policies.

    The Prime Minister : The Government have already taken steps to ensure that in the United Kingdom the environmental consequences of their policies, wherever they arise, are properly considered through, inter alia, the setting up of a ministerial committee on the environment and the appointment of Ministers with responsibility for green issues in each Department. The United Kingdom also works for the integration of environmental needs into other policies in the EC.

     

    Citizen’s Charter

    Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to satisfy himself that the working of the social security system with regard to applications for mobility allowance, attendance allowance and disability living allowance fall within the guidelines laid down by him for his citizen’s charter; and if he will clarify departmental responsibilities on this matter.

    The Prime Minister : The chief executive of the Benefits Agency is responsible for the administration of social security benefits and is accountable to the Secretary of State for Social Security for his performance.

    The Benefits Agency has taken vigorous action through the summer to accelerate the processing of claims and to reduce significantly the amount of work outstanding in relation to mobility allowance, attendance allowance and disability living allowance. The chief executive wrote to all hon. Members on 6 July and again on 19 October setting out progress.

     

    Pit Closures

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list, by county, the number of people who have so far telephoned his response number at 10 Downing Street in respect of the proposed pit closures; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a substantial number of representations on this issue.

     

    EC Budget

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will put to the Heads of Government a plan for a common coal policy on the lines of the common agricultural policy to be financed out of the United Kingdom’s net contribution to the EC budget.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 October 1992] : There is already an agreed Community policy on coal. The United Kingdom looks to the Commission, in its scrutiny of state aids for coal, to see that this policy is followed in all member states.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the European Union – 24 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the European Union, made in an interview in Cairo on Saturday 24th October 1992.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Norman Tebbit’s comments that the Maastricht Treaty should be defeated].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me talk about the wider issues that are at stake with European policy because I think they are perhaps imperfectly understood and they are very important. What sort of European Community do we want to build? I am clear what sort of European Community I want, I want an open market European Community, I do not want a protectionists Community; I want a wider Community, not a narrower Community; I want a Community that does not suck from individual states the authorities that rightly belong to nation states and I want some of that authority returned to them.

    That is what I am seeking to achieve in the position the government takes in all its European policies. I do not want to see the European Community take a wrong turn. The British voice is essential to making sure that the European Community does not make that wrong turn. We need therefore authority in Europe and we need therefore to make sure that the British voice is powerful. Changing out mind on treaties that we agreed within the consent of Parliament is not a way to build up your authority within the European Community.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was proud of the Treaty because of what was not in it].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let us look at both what is not in the treaty and what is in the treaty. There are two things in the treaty we signed that are quite different from the treaty signed by everybody else. Firstly, we are not committed to a single currency. I made it clear that I did not believe the right economic convergence would be there and I refused to agree to a single currency. We are not committed to that in the treaty in front of us.

    Secondly, we are not committed to the social chapter, not because we are not anxious to have good social conditions for people in this country, that is absurd, but because we believe it would damage employment prospects in this country and I refused to agree to that.
    But there is much in the treaty that is of value to us. Let me give you two illustrations. For the first time in I would sat 25 years we have actually negotiated in this treaty a way of intergovernmental cooperation within Europe, outside the Treaty of Rome, outside the power of the Commission and outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. We have sought that for a long time, no-one else negotiated it, it offers a new way for Europe to begin to develop in the future to produce the sort of Europe that the British want.

    Secondly, in that term called subsidiarity that we are now putting flesh on, we have actually opened up the prospect of actually ensuring that we do not get too many pettifogging restrictions that so frustrate people from Europe and we begin to return some power that they have taken back to the individual nation state. That is immensely valuable, it was not negotiated previously by anybody else, it is in the Maastricht Treaty and it is valuable to our interests.

    QUESTION:
    [Mr Major was asked if it was worth him risking his job on this issue].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Look, I am not going to talk about this in personal terms at all, let others draw what conclusions they like about this. This is a treaty, people should recall this, this is a treaty that has been more widely debated in this country before I went to negotiate it in Maastricht than it probably has in many other European countries, even up until now. Before I went there we obtained the authority of the House of Commons for the negotiating position that I would take. I then went there, I then negotiated within that remit and I came back with a conclusion within that remit. It was received with acclamation in the House of Commons, not least in the Conservative Party in the House of Commons. We then fought a general election where it was perfectly clear that we would honour the obligations we had established under that treaty. It has had a second reading in the House of Commons and it was passed with an overwhelming majority on the second reading. It is now necessary for us to continue with the committee stage.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Mubarak – 24 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Mubarak, held in Cairo on Saturday 24th October 1992.

    PRESIDENT MUBARAK:

    Today we welcome the Prime Minister, Mr Major, as one of our best friends here, the Prime Minister of a country which we have very good relations with and very close relations and we have their support in any difficulty which we meet and I welcome him again for a couple of hours in Cairo and I wish him to come for a much longer visit to have plenty of time to discuss so many issues and see the country as far as he can.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Hosni, thank you very much indeed. We have had the opportunity this morning of meeting entirely privately, entirely a deux, and the opportunity of discussing a wide range of issues.

    I should perhaps say at the outset that I do not think there can have been a time for very many years when the relationships between the United Kingdom and Egypt were so close, so frequent or so good and I am grateful to President Mubarak for the way in which he has enabled that to come about.

    Egypt is a very important power in this part of the world, a very good friend of the United Kingdom, and we have had the opportunity this morning of discussing a range of matters, both large and small, in absolute privacy and it has been a pleasure to be back in Cairo again, albeit for a very brief period. I am most grateful to you for your hospitality.

    QUESTION:

    President Mubarak, following the shooting of a British tourist recently, can you say whether firstly you are concerned that this will affect tourism to Egypt, and secondly whether you are going to take any particular special measures to protect tourists?

    PRESIDENT MUBARAK:

    Of course whenever such a thing occurs we are very sorry for what happened, I think done on an individual basis is not something against tourism and we have no fear about tourism and the problems in this part of the country sometimes [indistinct] even since the 40s, so we are not afraid of what happened to tourism, tourism is going very well and we are taking all measures to make the tourists very safe in our country. And I do not think that this incident is widespread all over the country as some other people might think.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    May I just add a brief word to that? There are acts of individual wickedness all over the world and this was one such with a terrible tragic consequence for one British citizen. The President and I discussed that this morning. I have to say that after the incident we could not have had greater cooperation from the President and from the Egyptian authorities and both of us would like to send our very deepest sympathy to the families, it was a most appalling incident. What I would say also is that last month in Egypt there were more tourists from the United Kingdom than we have ever seen in Egypt before in any single month. Over the years there have been millions and millions of British tourists who come to Egypt to see the wonders that exist here. I am in no doubt talking to President Mubarak that he and the authorities in Egypt will do all they can to seek to catch the perpetrators of this particular wicked act and ensure that they are suitably punished.

    QUESTION:

    Is there any new development regarding the Lockerbie crisis, have you reached any agreement on how to resolve this crisis?

    PRESIDENT MUBARAK:
    We have discussed the resolution from the UN which has been respected and I have discussed it with the Prime Minister, we are going to do our best to fulfil the obligations concerning the UN resolution.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Egypt has given very full cooperation on the United Nations resolution. I do not think there is anything fresh that needs to be said about the British position on Lockerbie, it remains as it was. People are perfectly clear that we require the people named to be surrendered for trial over the Lockerbie affair, that remains the position, and until such time as that is determined the sanctions will remain.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, if I could perhaps introduce a slightly lighter note, it is clear that you have enjoyed much cordiality so far in your visit here, perhaps a marked contrast to the reception that you have been receiving at home for the last 7 days, has it been pleasant to get away from it all?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is always pleasant to come to Cairo and to meet President Mubarak, I have had the pleasure of meeting him here before and of course we had the pleasure of President Mubarak and Mrs Mubarak visiting the United Kingdom last year so that is a very great pleasure. But I am British, I enjoy being in Britain, I enjoy the cut and thrust of politics in Britain, that is the case and will remain the case.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, I have two questions: what kind of help has Britain provided Egypt because of the earthquake and has the Birmingham Summit eased opposition towards the Maastricht Treaty and what steps will you take to boost sterling to its previous position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That sounded like 4 questions, not 2, I can see you are an economic forecaster. Let me deal with the first question first. I met Mrs Mubarak this morning and we have made a contribution to assist with the dreadful problems following the earthquake which was a very dramatic and a very appalling event in Egypt’s history. We have also made it clear that in terms of manpower and other assistance, where that is required the offer is there for the Egyptian authorities to ask us for assistance should they need it and we would be happy to do that. I have to say that the advice I have had is that the authorities here have coped magnificently with what is an exceedingly difficult problem, there are a huge number of schools to be rebuilt, there are a huge number of people to be rehoused immediately, but it has been dealt with in a most efficient and effective manner, we have made a financial contribution, we have offered also, if it is needed, the British expertise that may be required.

    And I had the pleasure of discussing that with Mrs Mubarak this morning.

    On the Birmingham summit, we did make some progress in the Birmingham summit, as I set out before, and I think it was necessary for us to do so. The Birmingham summit was an interim summit to ensure, amongst other things, that we are able to reach concrete decisions at the Edinburgh summit that will be of assistance to people right the way across the European Community and it was the collective view of the Heads of Government at the Birmingham summit that that was successfully achieved.

    QUESTION:

    I wonder if I could ask you, Mr President, what your thoughts are fifty years on after the El Alamein battle which took place in your country and Prime Minister similarly what your reflections are at the site of this battle you will be seeing tomorrow?

    PRESIDENT MUBARAK:

    The Alamein battle was a very famous battle which made a great change over the world. I think the celebration of fifty years of this battle, so many [indistinct], the Prime Minister is here, we have the Prime Minister of Greece and France and several representatives of European countries. We are going to [indistinct] this celebration of the Alamein battle.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I was not born when the El Alamein battle took place, but I think one thing is perfectly clear to my generation, if it had not been for the El Alamein battle, neither President Mubarak nor I could be certain that we would be standing here as the leaders of free nations, that is the importance of that battle. I do not believe that there is any shred of doubt that when you look through the litany of great battles of history that there is any doubt that El Alamein has a very honoured place in that litany, has now and always will have.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can you give me your assessment of the latest Geneva talks on finding a constitutional solution to Bosnia and Herzegovina in the light of the proposal of President Izetbegovic of Bosnia on a decentralised state? Secondly, after months of on-going peaceful efforts by Mr Panic and Kostić, the Prime Minister and President of Yugoslavia, do you believe that sanctions against Belgrade might be lifted soon?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think on that last point that that is imminent at the moment, no. On the earlier point, I think the systematic effort that has been made to seek a satisfactory agreement that will end the fighting in Yugoslavia must continue. We made some progress at the summit in London that I chaired not long ago and efforts to that extent are continuing. But agreement can only be reached in Yugoslavia if the participants to the fighting are prepared to reach an agreement themselves and then honour and keep the agreement that they reach, that is the criteria.

    The other problem that runs in parallel with those diplomatic efforts is the scale of the potential humanitarian disaster that is building up in Bosnia. This winter there are many people who are going to face the most appalling hardship. Whatever the extent of aid is provided, and the British are providing a great deal of aid and we are sending British troops there to make sure that the aid is delivered, there is going to be the most appalling hardship as winter comes closer and it is a savage winter in Yugoslavia. I believe that puts a special responsibility upon the leaders of each of the warring factions in Yugoslavia to realise the scale of that humanitarian disaster unless they reach a political agreement to stop fighting and honour that political agreement. The whole world will be watching to see how they react and the whole world will know where to put the blame if the humanitarian disaster we can see building up actually comes about.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Veterans Reunion in Alexandria – 24 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, held at a veterans reunion in Alexandria on Saturday 24th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are moments in life when you get some very pleasant surprises and being invited to speak to you just now is one such moment but it is, if I may say so, a very pleasant surprise.

    The first thing I would like to say this evening is to welcome you all here today and say that I believe meeting many of you I can begin to understand how you will feel about the ceremony tomorrow. I can tell you how I feel about it if I may: at the time of the great battle of Alamein, I wasn’t born but had it not been for the people who fought at Alamein and won at Alamein, I wouldn’t be standing here tonight as Prime Minister of a free country speaking to all of you and that is how I feel about that battle. [Applause].

    It will, I know, tomorrow be a very emotional moment for many people. I don’t think they should be concerned about their emotion. I believe they have every right to look back on what happened at that time with fond memories and with pride at what they achieved.

    Wherever you look back in the whole catalogue of what has been achieved in British history, wherever you look through the battles – whether you start at Agincourt or start before that and come beyond that – in that long catalogue of great battles that form part of our history and left us a free nation, there is no doubt that El Alamein is a battle that deserves to be on that list and will always remain on that list. [Applause].

    It will be a unique occasion tomorrow. Fifty years on for many people who actually lived through what that desert war was like. I asked one of them a few moments ago whether at the time he realised quite what he and his colleagues were achieving and he said, no, he didn’t realise what he was achieving but he did know that there was a very special atmosphere at that time, that there was a feeling that this was a battle that we couldn’t afford to lose and that if we did win it, it would make a significant difference. We now know that that instinct from someone I spoke to a moment ago who was a sapper at that time was absolutely right; it was the hinge that swung from a time of defeat and a time of misery to a time of victory and a time of ensuring that we had a free Europe thereafter.

    I can find no words – and I think perhaps no-one living can – to actually paint the picture of what it must have been like at that time in realising what that battle would mean for the future. All I can to say to those of you who are here today is when you look back on what happened so many years ago, you may think it is fifty years ago and will people remember it fifty years on? I think I would say to you that in this country they will remember that battle five hundred years on and the part that was played in it by so many brave men from so many different countries in such a remarkable and glorious cause.

    Tonight perhaps is a night for memories and not for speeches. The simplest and perhaps the plainest thing that one can say is simply to say on behalf of my generation and subsequent generations “Thank you” to those of you who fought there, perhaps particularly to those of you who fought there and who aren’t here today because they gave their lives on that occasion or who have not lived to see this remarkable fiftieth anniversary. Truly it can be said of those people: “They will not be forgotten! They deserve to be remembered and they always will be!”

    Enjoy tomorrow! You deserve it! [Applause].

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 October 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Single Market

    Mr. Leighton : To ask the Prime Minister what measures are outstanding to complete the single market.

    The Prime Minister : Of the 282 measures in the Commission’s White Paper, “Completing the Internal Market”, only 25 have not yet reached at least a common position or political agreement.

    Of these, six fall into the agriculture area; five deal with intellectual property; five are related to VAT; four are on company law; two on financial services; two on tax; and one on rights of residence.

     

    India

    Mr. Khabra : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the latest text of the extradition treaty with India.

    The Prime Minister : The extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and India was signed on 23 September 1992 and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses on that date.

     

    Western Shoshone Indian Land

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what correspondence Her Majesty’s Government have received from Chief Raymond Yowell of the Western Shoshone National Council, Nevada, concerning the continued use by the United Kingdom of the Department of Energy nuclear weapons test site on Western Shoshone Indian land.

    The Prime Minister : The only correspondence I have received was in October 1991. The British ambassador in Washington replied on my behalf. A copy of Sir Robin Renwick’s letter was placed in the Library of the House.

     

    United Nations Day

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty’s Government have to mark United Nations Day on 24 October.

    The Prime Minister : The flag of the United Nations will be flown in Parliament square on 24 October.

    Our commitment to the United Nations, as a founder of the organisation and a permanent member of the Security Council, remains as firm as ever. The end of the cold war and successes in, for example, Namibia and Kuwait have given the United Nations new authority. We welcome that and will continue to work for a stronger, more effective United Nations which can meet the challenges of the 1990s.

     

    EC Commissioners

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister when he will be making a statement on the appointment of the United Kingdom’s EC Commissioners.

    The Prime Minister : As announced on 20 October, I have nominated Sir Leon Brittan and Mr. Bruce Millan to serve in the Commission of the European Communities taking office in January 1993.

     

    Ministry of Justice

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to abolish the Lord Chancellor’s Department to make way for a Ministry of Justice.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Government Consultants

    Mr. McLeish : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish guidelines concerning the appointment of consultants by his Government.

    The Prime Minister : A guidance booklet on seeking help from management consultants was published by HM Treasury in May 1990. This booklet, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses, also identifies central sources of advice and guidance for other types of consultancy, for example, information and technology and purchasing.

     

    Subsidiarity

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the 22-page document including a draft inter-institute agreement relating to the principle of subsidiarity forwarded to him by the President of the Commission of the European Communities.

    The Prime Minister : The President of the Commission made a substantial presentation on subsidiarity at the Birmingham European Council, but he has not yet formally submitted a Commission paper. When the Commission submits a paper to the Council it will, of course, be published and deposited in the normal way.

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 October.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 October.

    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 – 22 October 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Moate : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 October.

    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. Moate : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that interest rates are significantly down and that car production figures and even retail sales figures are up? In welcoming the Government’s renewed commitment to economic growth and job creation, may I ask my right hon. Friend to tell the House more about his strategy for recovery– [Interruption.] The Opposition are not interested in recovery–in particular, ways of stimulating new capital investment projects, especially private and public sector joint-funded projects such as the important new Swale project in my constituency?

    The Prime Minister : I had the opportunity of learning about the Swale project when I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency some months ago. I think that everyone will welcome the drop in interest rates and the other economic developments that were mentioned by my hon. Friend. When it is safe to make further reductions without imperilling our inflationary objectives, it would certainly be the Government’s intention to do so. There is no doubt in any part of the House that across Europe and beyond Europe, economic circumstances have darkened and have become more difficult. That circumstance needs to be taken into account in our policy and in the policies of other countries as well. That means that in the months ahead there will be some difficult decisions. There will be tough decisions to be taken in the public expenditure round. It means that we must restrain expenditure where we can, but it also means that we must look with particular care at those elements of expenditure that have an employment and particularly growth potential, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will do. We shall certainly look more carefully at ensuring that we seek to get the private sector working more effectively to assist in capital projects, which I believe the whole House will welcome.

     

    Q2. Mr. Heppell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 October.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Heppell : Will the Prime Minister give a guarantee that the 10 pits that have been given a 90-day reprieve will be allowed to continue to mine coal during that period? The men want to work. Will he allow them to work?

    The Prime Minister : No, I cannot give a guarantee that during the 90-day period coaling will continue in those 10 pits. It is necessary, and it will be the case, that those pits will be in a condition to resume coaling. If at the end of that period it is determined that that is the decision, they shall do so. But during that period, I can give no guarantee that there will be coaling.

    Mr. Kynoch : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the tough new rules for GCSE examinations, which will ensure continuing pressure to improve and to achieve higher standards under this Government?

    The Prime Minister : I most certainly will. The requirement to seek higher standards is felt by every pupil, and it is a demand sought by every teacher and every parent. It will certainly be the Government’s policy to bring that about.

    Mr. Hume : As the Member who represents the constituency with the highest unemployment, I ask the Prime Minister to tell the House whether the reports of the Government’s intention to reduce contribution-based unemployment benefit are correct. Does he not believe that the Government would be better employed in applying their mind to reducing unemployment rather than to reducing unemployment benefit?

    The Prime Minister : As I said to the House a moment ago, it is certainly our intention to pursue a strategy that will bring recovery, and with it growth, jobs and prosperity–I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. It is essential that that moves right to the centre of thinking in each and every aspect of Government policy in the circumstances that now apply in this country, throughout western Europe and beyond. As I stated clearly a few moments ago, that is the Government’s intention.

    Sir Jim Spicer : In this statement on Tuesday my right hon. Friend stressed the crucial importance of an early completion of the GATT round. Now it seems that the talks have broken down. Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea why that happened, and will he do all that he can to get them started again?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly answer my hon. Friend’s second question in the affirmative. This morning I saw the reported comments of the French Foreign Minister that there will be no serious GATT discussions for several months. Let me make it absolutely clear to the House that I could not disagree more strongly with that view. It is not shared by the British Government as holder of the presidency of the Community, nor by the Commissioner, nor by the majority of member states, which last week at Birmingham authorised the Commission to negotiate for a GATT settlement by the end of this year.

    Over the past two weeks the narrowing of the gap between the Community and the United States has been very welcome. That gap can be bridged. What is needed is for both sides to stay at the negotiating table, and I shall do all that I can to bring that about.

    Mr. John Smith : Given the daily changes in policy which we have all observed this week, what does the Prime Minister have in mind for his next U-turn?

    The Prime Minister : I have to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I think that that question falls rather below the level of events. It was his U-turn on tax policy which helped to lose Labour the election. It sank his predecessor, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not resign–he was made the leader.

    Mr. Smith : Does not the Prime Minister realise that following the British Chambers of Commerce report which says that lack of confidence in the Government is causing many of our difficulties, confidence in him is drastically declining among the people of this country? They are not impressed by a Government blown about by events, and which has one simple rule–“A policy a day keeps Back Benchers at bay.”

    The Prime Minister : Only a few months ago all the people of this country had the choice to determine in whom they had confidence, and 14.5 million of them chose the Conservative party. That is why–because of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s tax policies, and because of a lack of confidence in his party–the right hon. and learned Gentleman is sitting on the Opposition Benches. That is where he will remain, for at least the next four-and-a-half years.

    Mr. Jonathan Evans : Notwithstanding the recent reactions we have heard from China, may I ask my right hon. Friend for his assurance that he will give his unequivocal support to the governor of Hong Kong in his recent announcement, which is good for the people of Hong Kong, good for Britain and entirely in accord with this country’s agreement with the Chinese Government?

    The Prime Minister : I can most certainly give that assurance. The governor’s proposals set out recently in his speeches in Hong Kong received very wide support among all sorts of opinion in Hong Kong, and very wide support in this House and in public opinion in this country. His aim is to make the Hong Kong Government more effective and more accountable, and to broaden democracy in a way that will survive beyond 1997. That is the right future for Hong Kong, and the governor has the complete and total support of the Government and the whole House in that endeavour.

     

    Q3. Mr. Meale : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 October.

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

    Mr. Meale : To return to the subject of mining, will the Prime Minister give the House a guarantee that while the review period continues in the coal mining industry, he will place a moratorium on manpower and coal development underground? Without that, it is a meaningless exercise and many pits will face mass redundancies and closures. Yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : I think that we have made clear to the hon. Gentleman what happens during the moratorium and the fact that the 21 pits, apart from the 10 where there are special circumstances, will continue in the fashion that was set out clearly yesterday. I cannot and will not give the hon. Gentleman detailed assertions about matters that lie within the day-to-day management responsibility of British Coal.

    Mr. Tracey : My right hon. Friend’s recent words on growth and sound investment are much to be welcomed. May we, as London Members, urge on my right hon. Friend the cause of the completion of the Jubilee line and the benefits that would flow from it?

    The Prime Minister : I know how assiduous my hon. Friend is in the interests of London. I have noted most carefully what he said.

     

    Q4. Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 October.

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

    Mr. Wareing : It has been widely suggested that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade should resign. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what are his qualities and those of his colleagues which could justify their continuance in office?

    The Prime Minister : The 14.5 million votes we got in the general election.

    Mr. Barry Porter : I had the opportunity this morning of speaking on the electronic telephonic device to Sir Anthony Beaumont-Dark, who had one or two ideas. He seemed to think that it was not a bad idea to reduce interest rates in a gentle sort of fashion, taking into account what the deutschmark is doing, and that we should keep up a reasonable semblance of public expenditure in capital terms. I thought to myself at the time, “That is not a bad idea”. Does the Prime Minister agree?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be at all surprised to know that Sir Anthony has mentioned those matters to me as well.

     

    Q5. Mr. Nigel Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 October.

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

    Mr. Jones : When the people of Cheltenham march, should not the Prime Minister ask himself what is going on? Does he not realise that they are angry about the way in which the economy is being run? The Prime Minister and his office say that there has been a change in economic policy; the Treasury says that there has not. Who is telling us the truth?

    The Prime Minister : The Government always listen when people make comments of that sort and it was perfectly clear to the House from what I said a few moments ago precisely what objectives the Government have set themselves. Lest there be any doubt in the hon. Gentleman’s mind, let me say that there has been no movement away from the inflation objective or from the belief that we need non-inflationary growth. There is no doubt, not even in the hon. Gentleman’s mind, that outside this country as well as inside this country, there is a changed economic environment. In that changed economic environment, we have to consider what is in the interests of this country and shape our policies accordingly. That is what we have decided to do. That is the policy that we will continue with.

    Mr. Hunter : In the light of the IRA’s intensifying campaign of violence in several parts of the United Kingdom, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient powers and resources are available to those combating terrorism? Will he make it a priority to give fresh consideration to those matters?

    The Prime Minister : We have always given very great priority to the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland where the security forces face terrorism on a day-to-day basis and on the mainland where, increasingly in recent months, the terrorists have sought to intimidate with bombs. I must make the point to the terrorists again which will carry universal support in the House : they have no chance whatsoever of succeeding–not now, not tomorrow, not ever.

     

    Q6. Mr. Grocott : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 October.

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

    Mr. Grocott : Does the Prime Minister remember that at the time of the Tory leadership election the reason given for why he beat his two rivals was that he was the one who was the particularly good economist? Will he therefore help the House and tell us whether the Government are pursuing the old economic policy or a new one? Will it be promoted by the old Chancellor or a new one?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly is not listening. He spends too much time reading in the newspapers about what might have been said two years ago.