The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1993

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Copenhagen – 22 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Copenhagen, given on Tuesday 22nd June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In some ways this was a refreshingly different sort of summit. I say that because it did face up, in a way previous summits I do not believe have done, to the problem of 18 million people in Europe without jobs and the negative growth that confronts 4 or 5 of our partners this year. And I think that the discussion we had on economic matters was the most thorough and the most frank that I can remember in the period I have been coming to these summits.

    We reached broad agreement on competitiveness and the importance of that for the future. We did not waste a great deal of time on Euro-theology, that was despatched to the sidelines where personally I believe it belongs. It was a time in this discussion to get down to some brass tacks, for us to consider what might actually be done to help get Europe back to work.

    At the end of our discussions the Council has come out with a clear message, and I think the clear message is this – tackling unemployment and restoring competitiveness will be the top priority.

    In his presentation to the European Council, the President of the Commission elaborated two facts known to many of us but brought out in discussion in this summit in a very stark way. The first of those was that Community unemployment has been on a steadily rising trend throughout the last 20 years. It has risen and dipped with growth and lack of growth but the underlying trend has been a rising trend of unemployment since the early 1970s. The second stark fact is another unpalatable fact for those of us in Western Europe and that is the reality that the Community’s share of the world market has been falling throughout the last 10 years.

    I agree with the diagnosis that the President of the Commission set out, even though I do not agree with all the remedies that he proposed in his paper. But I do think he was absolutely right to put the Community’s need to compete at centre stage of our consideration. The simple reality is that if we do not compete and compete successfully, we will contract, and that means less jobs and it is as simple as that.

    We agreed in the summit on a number of measures designed to improve Europe’s economic prospects. First, we agreed it was vital to keep inflation low for sustainable growth and cost competitiveness. Second, as we agreed at Edinburgh last December, we agreed again to give priority to growth and investment in our public expenditure programmes. Third, we agreed to expand the European Investment Bank infrastructure lending facility from 5 billion ECU to 8 billion, I personally would have been prepared to go a little higher than that, but 8 billion was the figure that we settled upon. And fourthly, it was agreed that we had to get fiscal deficits down right the way round the Community, without which much of Europe will be in no position to get its interest rates down and of course for many European colleagues that is still an acutely important matter.

    We touched on some other sensitive issues in our discussion. We are all facing the problem of the rising cost of social provisions. All of us, without exception, want to protect the elderly and the vulnerable and the cost therefore of overall provision has to be kept under control so we can pick the right priorities and deal satisfactorily and comprehensively with those priorities.

    I have argued strenuously, and I have to say with a great deal of support, that the Community has to keep down the cost of jobs so as to help those people without jobs, those people who need new jobs. And it was for that reason that I have argued against what I think is quite muddle-headed meddling which has led to directives like the working time directive. I would like nothing better, across the whole Community, to have the Community as a whole described as a paradise for foreign investment. Alas that is not yet the position across the whole Community.

    But getting Europe to take competitiveness seriously, I think we have done that at this summit and I think that is a start. And there are two very important elements to follow. Over the next 6 months we are going to work on structural reforms to combat unemployment, to scrutinise non-wage costs, to boost flexibility in labour markets, to improve training and education. Those are aims for all of us and I hope that will lead to a genuinely radical report from the Commission at the December Council. All of us will examine the proposals put forward by the President of the Commission, we will comment on them, agree with them, disagree with them and add other things to them. And I hope the sum total of that will be a radical report in December.

    We also, both in the conclusions and in the Council itself, spent some time on subsidiarity on its various aspects. And we have here another very welcome dose of realism. We are pushing ahead, with very strong support from France, from Germany and from a number of other member states. This morning the Commission produced a list of areas where, as a result of subsidiarity considerations arising from previous agreements at summits, they have decided not to legislate, legislation that would have happened, that now will not happen because of the new atmosphere created by subsidiarity.

    We are still examining existing legislation that should either be removed entirely, axed, or perhaps in some cases amended, and I expect we will have a significant list of specific measures in December. There are differing traditions in each country, especially on labour market measures, and they must be restricted. I do not think we should seek uniformity for its own sake.

    On the external side of our discussions we discussed GATT. If we want growth then we need an agreement to the Uruguay Round, we have waited too long for it. Year after year we have expected an agreement by the end of the year and year after year the deadline has been extended yet again. We need to go a long way in what is now a relatively short time if we are to get a comprehensive Uruguay agreement this year. I remain convinced that we all stand to benefit from a successful end to the Uruguay Round.

    Let me highlight three other external points before turning to Bosnia, each of them takes a big step forward towards a long held goal that Britain has been concerned with. The first is very clear cut. We have now set a very clear target for the enlargement negotiations and I hope we will see Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden in the Community by 1 January 1995, earlier than many people expected, and the Community in my view will be stronger for their membership. Secondly, we have agreed in our discussions in the last two days that the 6 countries of central and Eastern Europe will join the Community. To help them down the road to membership we will develop closer political links and open our markets more rapidly to their goods, and that I believe is desperately needed from their point of view. Thirdly, a word about Russia. Russia’s weight and its international standing is important for all of us and that is reflected in the new proposal, a British proposal that I made during our discussions, for six-monthly summits with the President of Russia between the President of Russia and the Community.

    Let me now turn to our discussions on Bosnia. I think many of you heard last night, from sources that I cannot possibly guess at, that we had a lively debate on Bosnia last evening. That is certainly true and all of us of course are deeply anxious about the situation there, it has noticeably deteriorated on the ground in recent weeks, the vulnerability of the Muslims and the risks to those who are helping them worry all of us, but especially those of us with first-hand experience and the commitment of large numbers of troops on the ground providing humanitarian relief.

    I expressed the view last night, and reiterate it today, that I firmly believe that now is not: the time to abandon negotiations and to adopt the council of despair which lifting the arms embargo would represent. Lifting the embargo would lead, I believe, to an even bloodier war but without at the end of that producing the prospect of a better settlement that can only be obtained by negotiation.

    The European Council has not made that fundamental change to our policy. The declaration on Bosnia-Herzegovina rightly does not call for the embargo to be lifted, indeed it reaffirms our confidence in Lord Owen and Mr Stoltenberg whose determination in the cause of peace is remarkable and rightly is widely acknowledged. So we have encouraged them to pursue further a fair and a viable settlement.

    I would underline the vital point, and it is a vital point for all of us, that that settlement must be acceptable to all three constituent peoples of Bosnia Herzegovina. We shall not accept a territorial solution dictated by Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Bosnian Muslim if a settlement can be found which meets these criteria, which is based on the principles of the London Conference and the Vance/Owen plan, and which is accepted by the Muslims as offering fair and viable conditions and the prospect of an early end to this terrible war, that must be the best outcome. I for one believe we should continue to pursue that outcome, not move precipitately to lifting an arms embargo which amongst other matters would pour more arms into an area torn by warfare, would increase the bloodshed, would increase the risk of the war spilling out of its present boundaries, would open wider the risk of a third Balkan war, and perhaps very speedily indeed, if not immediately, would also lead to the total end of humanitarian relief in Bosnia. The time for that is not yet. I expressed that view last night, I reiterated that view this morning and I am happy to confirm to you in public that that remains the position we have taken.

    Let me just sum up this summit. Rows of course, and there has been the occasional exchange over the last couple of days, rows make catchy headlines, they are quite good fun for those who participate in them and for those no doubt who report them, but shared realism and determination are to me the story of what this Council has really been about. The best Community debates are not about institutions, they are about practicalities, and the debate that we have had in the last day and a half has been a very practical debate, a debate about developing a new economic approach, an approach designed to cut red tape and regulation and help create new jobs, a debate about: significant progress with enlargement, enlargement to the north and enlargement also to Austria, and the prospect also of subsequent later enlargement further east. The debate has also been about a new relationship with Russia and one that I personally believe is merited and welcome.

    These are big changes, especially big changes if you compare this Council with those of just a few years ago. What it seems to me has happened is this, under the pressure of serious economic problems across Europe the Community is taking an increasingly pragmatic approach, it is addressing today’s needs and not tomorrow’s dreams. I believe that is the right way to go.

    It may be a little late but it is very welcome that the Community are now doing that. And I think to that extent we may look back on this summit in the last couple of days and regard it as a watershed in the way the Community addressed its business and its future.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph):

    You haven’t mentioned this request in the final communique for member states to comply with the UN Secretary-General’s request for more troops, which rather surprises me. Does Britain intend to send more troops to Bosnia? If not, where will those troops come from? Do we expect Germany to pay for the dispatch of more troops, for instance? And do you agree with President Mitterrand that if troops are not sent, then the embargo should be dropped?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Those questions, I think Boris, are really for Germany and for others, not for me. We have our troops there, we have made our contribution and I don’t envisage that changing. Others felt across the Community that perhaps they could make a greater contribution but it is not for me to say what they would have to do.

    We have made our contribution, it is a very substantial contribution, it is there, it has been there for months, it has been doing an excellent job. If others believe they may be able to make a further contribution, I welcome that if they can. Certainly, we would all like to see the extra troops there that are needed for the safe areas plan; perhaps some of those can come from Community countries, some perhaps from countries beyond the Community but Britain, I think, has made its contribution.

    QUESTION (Steve Doughty, Daily Mail):

    Prime Minister, should negotiations towards a fair settlement in Bosnia fail, are you prepared ultimately to consider the lifting of the arms embargo?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is a rapidly-moving scene. I don’t like the counsel of despair that it would fail. If, at the end of the day, it fails we will have to look afresh at what the situation is. At the moment it hasn’t failed, there are negotiations that can still continue. I think that is the right way to go ahead. To judge what might happen beyond that would be to play a part in helping the negotiations fail and I for one would not wish to do that.

    QUESTION (John Palmer, The Guardian):

    Prime Minister, half an hour or so ago, the Danish Presidency and the President of the Commission made it clear that as a result of the discussion at this summit there would be no question of any rolling back of the Community’s social dimension let alone any existing social legislation. The Presidency said that would send a very negative signal to wage-earners in Europe. Are you reconciled now with having lost the argument for the roll-back on the Community’s social aspirations in view of your arguments on competitivity?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we have not the lost the argument about the roll-back; that is a curious interpretation of the discussion over the last couple of days. You have been attending these summits for a long time, John, you have been attending these press conferences for a long time; when before in all the long years in which you have endured these great occasions have you seen the European Council actually address the difficulties across Europe of rising social costs leading to lack of competitiveness? The answer is you may have heard it from the British, you may occasionally have heard it from one or two other nations but that is about all. On this occasion, it went right the way round the table and the fact of the matter is if you look around the Community, Italy, France, Holland, a whole range of other countries are actually taking action on social costs for precisely the reasons we have set out and that everybody acknowledged in the debate.

    Nobody is suggesting that there is no social dimension to the Community. Nobody is suggesting, except those at the extremes of argument who wish to squash sensible debate, that we would wish to end the social provision that exists in the Community. I am not saying that and nobody else is saying that. I wish people would address the matter sensibly.

    What we are saying is that if we go on piling cost upon cost upon cost in the European Community, there can only be one effect and that effect is that we will become less competitive in Europe and what we will export most will not be our goods but our jobs and one of the striking aspects of the Delors presentation was firstly that rising line of unemployment over the last twenty years in the Community, secondly the declining line of competitiveness and thirdly, the fact that across the Community there is a strikingly high number of people with modest skills who are unemployed for very long periods indeed.

    The point that I am making is this so that it is not misunderstood by anyone: we have to look at the social requirements of people who are not in work. Our first priority must be to get as many as we can of the 17 million European citizens without work back into jobs. That should be our first priority – I don’t want that rising to 20 million or beyond as people have forecast and if we simply look at ever-increasing social provision for those in work, we will do so at the expense of being able to help those people out of work. I don’t want to be misrepresented or misunderstood by anybody. That is the British position and I hope it is entirely clear.

    QUESTION (Raymond Lloyd, The New Internationalist):

    The British Government has justified its low acceptance rate of Bosnian refugees in part on the grounds that it was desirable that they stay as close as possible to their homeland. Now that these homelands are disappearing by the day, will Britain now accept as many Bosnian refugees as, say, the 10,000 Hungarian refugees given asylum in 1956 and 1957?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think, if you take the British record over a lot of years, not only in Bosnia but in other areas, that anybody can legitimately criticise Britain for not taking its share of people who found themselves in difficulty around the world or playing its part in helping them on the ground so I have no further change of policy to announce today.

    QUESTION (Graham Leach, BBC):

    Chancellor Kohl a short time ago was referring to the great moral issue at the centre of this Bosnian crisis, the fact that the Bosnian Muslims are in the weakest position of the various parties there to defend themselves and he is clearly hosting the view of deep unhappiness about, this new proposed settlement which he believes is being dictated largely by the Serbs and the Croats.

    How much moral disquiet do you have that the focus of the negotiations now is merely or appears merely to be salvaging what you can for the Muslim population?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My moral disquiet was actually evidenced last August when we were the first to put troops in to deal with the humanitarian effort. My moral disquiet has been there throughout the whole of this episode.

    One has to understand the reality of what has happened and what the options are. With the collapse of the old Yugoslavia and indeed the collapse of the discipline exerted by the old Soviet Union, the genie of old hatreds came out of the bottle in Bosnia-Herzegovina. There was brutally a choice. We – by “We” mean not just the European Community but the rest of the world – perhaps through the United Nations could have decided to put in several hundred thousand troops – for that is what it would have meant – to hold the combatants apart, Heaven knows for how long, six months, a year, five years, ten years. We have been in Cyprus for 28 years. Nobody was prepared to do that; it would not have been a practicable military proposition without huge loss of life and there was no enthusiasm for doing it. Many great states still don’t have any troops on the ground there.

    Once that was pushed to one side, there was only one effective route to take; that was to seek humanitarian aid to minimise the suffering and minimise the loss of life and I would argue that that humanitarian assistance led by the British and the French – the French have been remarkable and the Spanish have done very good work there as well – has saved an unknown number but a huge number of lives over the winter. Allied with that, we needed to seek a political settlement. It is very easy to stand back and say: “Why not do something else?” but there was no other way to deal with it other than to seek a political settlement and that is what repeatedly we have been doing.

    I set out my reasons a few moments ago why I am reluctant to see the arms embargo lifted and I think they are compelling reasons – I won’ t reiterate them again today. I still believe the first prize both for Bosnia as a whole and for the rest of the world is to maintain the humanitarian aid, not destroy it with a single gesture, and to see even now whether we can achieve a satisfactory political settlement that will bring the fighting to an end.

    There is a moral issue. The first moral issue is to stop the killing. We must all make our own judgement about how that is best done and I have set out my judgement quite clearly.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    There has been a danger from the very beginning of this of exaggerated expectations of what people outside the former Yugoslavia could do and therefore exaggerated criticism when they don’t do it and the British Government, whether in the Security Council, in NATO or here in the Community, consistently said from the very beginning that it is not possible for outsiders to impose a just and durable peace. It has to be negotiated. The only possible way of imposing a peace would be, as the Prime Minister said, in effect to declare Bosnia and perhaps indeed Croatia as some kind of UN protectorate or colony and keep troops there for year after year. No-one is proposing that.

    There have always been limitations on what we can do from outside and much of the criticism and disappointment has been from people who did not at the beginning understand those limitations. What we have done is, as the Prime Minister said, provided a political framework, provided pressures, sanctions, to encourage those concerned – and particularly the Serbs with their special responsibility – to negotiate, provide humanitarian help and keep people alive. Those are the things we have been doing and within their limits we have been doing them successfully.

    Now it has moved on a stage in the sense that Lord Owen reported two nights ago to the foreign ministers that it looked as if the Serbs and Croats were considering a plan, beginning to put forward a plan. It is not for us in this Community to endorse that plan; we have not done so, it is not our plan. It is not for us to tell the Muslims that they should accept that plan; we have not done so; we made that clear to President Izetbegovic yesterday. But it is for them to consider – this is what I asked him – whether they should in fact find out, discuss and explore the possibilities. Whether they will do that or not I don’t know but it is reasonable that they should.

    One could imagine a situation, as the Prime Minister said, where it all collapsed, it was too dangerous to keep British troops there, the UN effort could not continue, negotiations collapsed. That is a different situation which is why in the Washington statement we did not exclude harsher measures but to end the arms embargo now, to involve the withdrawal of the UN effort, stop the effective effort of keeping people alive, in fact arm Croats as well as Muslims and Serbs, those are the consequences of the lifting of the arms embargo now and because those consequences are fairly clear a very substantial view here was that we should not change our policy.

    QUESTION (Japanese Newspaper):

    What sort of message or guidelines is the European Council to take to Japan for the economic summit and G7 in a few weeks time although Japanese politics are in turmoil?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a difficult thing! The European Council did not discuss a collective view for the G7 summit though a number of European members, France, Germany, Britain and the Commission itself of course will be there but we didn’t over the last couple of days agree a concerted line for what we might discuss in Japan.

    There is a good deal of preparatory work still going on as I am sure you will know and I think it will be a few days yet before positions are taken. It was not discussed in the last day and a half.

    QUESTION (Peter Snow, BBC TV):

    Are you going to fully participate in the creation of the European Monetary Institute with a view perhaps to participating in the ECB at the end of it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is agreed in the Maastricht Treaty that everyone, whether they are operating within the Exchange Rate Mechanism or not, remains within the European Monetary System so of course we contribute to the decision-making.

    As to when we will return to the Exchange Rate Mechanism, we have made it clear that it isn’t imminent; it will probably be some years before we are able to do that. I have made that clear, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that clear and that hasn’t changed at all as a result of our discussions in the last day and a half.

    QUESTION (Peter Snow, BBC TV):

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Oh yes. If by “in that” you mean will we have a say in where it goes, what it does and in the governing of it, the answer is Yes.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    Prime Minister, I was wondering if you are now in a position to deny categorically the allegation made in the “Guardian” that the Tory Party received £7 million from the Saudi royal family before the last election. I was also wondering if Mr. Mates is still a member of your Government and is going to stay there.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer to the first point is that the story is total fantasy from beginning to end. The Conservative Party doesn’t accept money from foreign governments or from royal families and it hasn’t done so. I don’t know what the sources of those stories were. If there is any firm evidence, I hope someone will bring it to me to see. I don’t myself deal with these matters but I am assured that the story is utterly and completely unfounded.

    As far as Mr. Mates is concerned, I made the position clear this morning. Nothing has changed since then.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC TV):

    Do you accept, Prime Minister, that it is part of your responsibility as Conservative party leader to make sure that the party is funded from proper sources and wouldn’t that task be made much easier if it was made a condition of giving large donations to a political party that the donor’s name should be made public by the party?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Conservative Party is funded by individuals, by companies and by its own party activists. Overwhelmingly most of it comes from its own party activists. There are people who donate money to the party who require anonymity. That is the position, has always been the position and I don’t see any logical reason for changing that position.

    What we have seen in the last couple of days goes back really to the last question. It is very easy for the most extraordinary stories to run around rather like the one that appeared this morning which I am assured, though I don’t have a direct responsibility for these matters, is totally untrue. I appreciate that it is always possible for quite absurd stories to be put up, run around and given a good deal of publicity but the fundamental choice is this; political parties could of course be funded by the state. That is really what the Labour Party would like because their only funding at the moment comes from trade unions many of whose members are not supporters of the Labour Party though nonetheless their money no doubt goes to the Labour Party; they have no organisation in the constituencies to speak of, they have no means of raising money in the constituencies and businesses are so hostile to their policies no-one would give them twopence halfpenny so clearly they are very much in the business of making sure there is state funding. They are very keen on state funding; they have always liked more. I don’t like the principle of having our political parties principally funded by the taxpayer compulsorily – I don’t like it – and I have to tell you that I don’t think the taxpayer would like it either.

    That being so, I think a free and open democratic party should be funded in the way we have traditionally been funded. We have made it clear we don’t accept money from foreign governments, we don’t accept money from foreign royal families. In the event that any money handed to us turns out to be tainted, we will return that money but people who contribute to political parties do have a right to anonymity just as they have a right to anonymity if they contribute to charities or other things. That has been the position and I see no logical reason for changing it.

    QUESTION (BBC Hungarian Service):

    Could I just go back to one aspect of Stage 1 which hasn’t been touched yet, that of enlargement? As the UK is one of the supporters of enlargement, can I ask you Prime Minister whether you envisage that some of the six former socialist countries or indeed some of the Visegrad Four can be granted full membership earlier than others and if so, have you got a preferable candidate?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think any of them are remotely ready to come into the Community now. I wish they were because Britain is a foremost supporter of having them join the Community but the fact of the matter is they aren’t economically ready to join and it will be some time before they are. It was for that reason that we wanted to ensure that they had Association Agreements, it was for that reason that we wanted to open some of the trade barriers so they can export more easily to us and help make themselves ready to join the Community.

    As to whether they could join individually or whether they have to join collectively, I think it is inevitable that they will join individually. Whatever the past thought may have been that they will all come in at the same date, the fact of the matter is that one or two of them will be ready for membership of the Community in advance of the others and I for one would not then wish to close the Community door on them. If one is ready and the others are not, I think we should let that one in and then the others as and when they are ready to join the Community but I have to say to you I think it is some years ahead.

    QUESTION (Michael White, The Guardian):

    I know approximately where the allegations are sourced in this morning’s “Guardian” report, Prime Minister and accept that they should be taken seriously. Therefore can I, in the light of your remarks this morning, press you a little further?

    You said that yours was a democratically-funded, largely domestically-funded party but the difficulty with your position is that so much of your funding admitted and reported in the annual accounts isn’t readily accountable for so therefore can I press you a little further?

    You said this morning no donations from the Saudi Government, you said this afternoon no donations from the Saudi royal family. I wonder if your knowledge of the situation goes far enough to enable you to say no donations came from either private individuals or corporations in Saudi Arabia which though it is an ally of ours is scarcely a democratic ally of ours, and if you consider that to be fanciful, I wonder if I could extend the question a moment and say what is in the public domain is that your colleague, Mr. Heseltine, was taken ill in Venice at the weekend. The DTI thought he was going to be in Germany and he was meeting with Lord McAlpine whom I think we all know is not a kissing cousin politically speaking of Mr. Heseltine. Do we know what he was doing with Lord McAlpine?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have absolutely no idea. I don’t know what sort of “Guardian” you now represent but the concept that Michael Heseltine shouldn’t spend a weekend in Venice with his wife and meet someone he has known for twenty years seems to me rather an extraordinary proposition.

    If you have evidence of the sort that you printed this morning in the “Guardian” bring it to me and show it to me. I am assured that your story this morning was total and utter fantasy. If you think it wasn’t, until you are sure bring the evidence to me and see. I make that offer to you. You bring the evidence to me, I will examine it. Just let us have a little less innuendo and a little more fact. Bring the evidence to me, Michael, or don’t print it!

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Copenhagen – 22 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Copenhagen on Tuesday 22nd June 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Good morning, Prime Minister! Could I ask you about the disagreement with Herr. Kohl about the partial lifting of the arms embargo? There is a possibility now of a disarray on this issue, isn’t there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had a discussion about how to deal with the problem of Bosnia for some time we have thought right the way through the right way is to continue negotiations. I want to stop the killing, not add to the killing. I don’t believe that lifting the arms embargo and flooding more arms into the area would do anything other than stop any chance of a negotiated settlement, add to the fighting, add to the killing, add to the length of the war and open the prospect of it widening. That is not a policy I favour.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, are the allegations that the Tory Party received £7 million from the Saudi Government before the last election true?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have been Prime Minister for two-and-a-half years. In my period, that certainly is not true, neither before [indistinct]. I read a lot of absurd allegations; they will be debated in the House of Commons today.

    QUESTION:

    Are you still supporting Mr. Mates?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set out my position about that some time ago; it hasn’t changed.

    QUESTION:

    Today you are still supporting him?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It hasn’t changed.

    QUESTION:

    So Mr. Mates stays?

    PRIME MINISTER:
    I’ve just answered the question. I set out the position some time ago; it hasn’t changed; it won’t change if you ask the same question three times.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Major, on Europe, are you hopeful that the British position on getting growth back into the economy will be fully reflected in the communique today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the requirement for growth is needed right way across the European Community. Everybody agrees with that. I don’t think there is any dispute about it. The question is which are the right ways to get growth back. What was perfectly clear both by the presentation by the Commission yesterday and in the comments of many member states is that our particular costs – labour costs, on-costs, a whole range of costs – are rendering us uncompetitive compared to the United States and to Japan and that is a very great disadvantage for us in the future.

    If we become uncompetitive, we’ll lose markets; if we lose markets, we’ll lose jobs and one of the problems you can see in Europe over recent years is that over a twenty-year period since the beginning of the 1970s, year-on-year one has begun to see a rising level of unemployment right the way across western Europe. That isn’t something we can ignore. We have to examine it, look at the details of it, decide what is the true cause of it and then either address that cause or accept that that underlying rise in unemployment will go on. I am not prepared to accept that so I think we have to address the cause.

    QUESTION:

    Any more news on Mr. Heseltine?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I spoke to his family this morning. He had a good night, a comfortable night, and he will be seeing doctors this morning so I think that is quite encouraging and I am very pleased.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 June 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Mr. Asil Nadir

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answers to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on 8 June, Official Report, column 138, when and where the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), met Mr. Asil Nadir during the 10 days prior to Mr. Nadir travelling to northern Cyprus.

    The Prime Minister : That is a matter for my hon. Friend.

     

    Registration Campaigns

    Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister what the budgets are or were for the operation of the most recent registration campaigns for (a) the sale of British Telecom shares, (b) overseas voters and (c) electoral registration by United Kingdom residents.

    The Prime Minister : Details of the costs of the BT3 share offer will be reported to Parliament in due course, following completion of the sale. These will include, and separately identify, the costs of marketing and the share information office. The sum of £672,000 was spent in the 1992-93 financial year in Great Britain on advertising to encourage people to register to vote. Advertising in support of electoral registration is not carried out in Northern Ireland. A publicity campaign to make British citizens living abroad aware of their new voting rights was carried out in 1990 only, at a cost of £705,000.

     

    Teaching Company Scheme

    Dr. Moonie : To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of the teaching company scheme budget is being transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 June 1993] : None.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Copenhagen (II) – 20 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Copenhagen on Monday 21st June 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, could we ask you about the prospects now, particularly with regard to the social chapter and a possible argument with Jacques Delors, are you prepared to take on the federalists in this discussion?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My position about the social chapter is perfectly clear, it has been made clear for months and it certainly is not going to change this morning. The reality is not just for the United Kingdom but for the whole of Europe, Europe must compete or it will contract, if we price ourselves out of world markets we will lose exports, but worse than that, we will lose jobs. 17 million people unemployed, rising in most countries throughout the European Community, it is folly to keep piling costs on employers, making ourselves uncompetitive, losing exports and losing jobs. That is not an ideological point, it is a very practical point for 17 million people who are unemployed.

    QUESTION:

    But aren’t a lot of the people here going to say that you are trying to kill off the spirit of Maastricht, that the whole idea of the Maastricht Treaty was to grow closer together in social policy as well as everything else.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Growing closer together with more people unemployed is not a very attractive policy, and there is nothing novel about the British position on that. Right from the outset I have claimed that the social charter was a job destruction programme. Now I am taking a very pragmatic view and unless we are able to contain our costs in the Community we will lose our markets, if we lose our markets, we lose jobs, now you cannot ignore that reality, I shall address that reality this morning.

    QUESTION:

    What about the timetable to a single currency, is that at all possible under the Maastricht rules?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You know I have had a great deal of reservation about the timetable for a single currency, that is not new, I expressed my reservations about that at the time of the Maastricht debate. At that time there was a feeling across Europe that the European economies would converge and make the timetable more realistic. I think most dispassionate observers would say that the economies have diverged and not converged and I think one draws one’s own conclusion from that.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Copenhagen (I) – 20 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Copenhagen on Sunday 20th June 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, how do you react to suggestions that Mr Mates’s position is now untenable?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am here to talk about the European Council, there is a great deal to be done. There are across Europe around 17 million Europeans unemployed, I think we have to address the question why that is and what we have to do. And there are a range of other serious things we have to discuss: subsidiarity clearly is in the middle of it; enlargement, I want to see some dramatic approaches towards the enlargement problem in the Community, it is clearly the way we must go. So we have quite a substantive agenda in front of us.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think you are going to be pushed on this question of economic and monetary union, do you think that you will have another battle with the federalists?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure, to be honest I doubt that very much, I do not think so. It may be that some people will raise the matter but our position about that is quite clear, I have made it quite clear and I will reiterate it here. But I think the problem that rests in the front of most people’s mind is the problem of unemployment in the Community and the prospects for growth. If one looks across the whole of the European Community, the United Kingdom is coming out of recession and is beginning to grow, but most of the European economies are going in the other, direction and that is a source of great worry. We are overall in the Community becoming less competitive compared to Japan and the United States and that is something we have to reverse.

    QUESTION:

    On Bosnia, would you accept the criticism that has been made that Bosnia should not go into separate states as a result of Serb aggression?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are going to have quite a substantive discussion on Bosnia I think over the next couple of days, Foreign Ministers will be meeting tonight, they will be briefed by David Owen, I think the position will be a little clearer at the end of that briefing. Quite a lot has happened both on the ground and in terms of diplomacy over the last few weeks. What everyone wants to do is to find a settlement that is satisfactory, that will stop the killing, that will stop the fighting and a settlement that will last. That will not readily or easily be obtained, but I think we will have to look pragmatically at what is possible, I look forward to meeting Douglas Hurd after his meeting tonight and the discussion we will have tomorrow.

    QUESTION:

    Rasmussen has said that later interest rates will be on the agenda, do you see any room for concerted action on interest rates after this meeting?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think perhaps I am the one member of the Community here that perhaps is least likely to respond to that. The problems of interest rates across the European Community I think are self-evident, that Europe as a whole would benefit from lower interest rates I think is beyond doubt, but that is a matter that must be discussed amongst those who find themselves locked together.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that the Conservative Party should return the funds that it has received from Mr Asil Nadir?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Norman Fowler has made the position absolutely clear, any money that was dishonestly obtained and dishonestly donated to the Conservative Party is not wanted by the Conservative Party. If it proves to have been dishonestly obtained and dishonestly remitted to us then of course we will return it. The Conservative Party exists on funds raised within the constituency and honestly and freely donated to the Party, that is the way for a democratic party to survive, it is the way we survive, it is the way we have behaved in the past. These are matters that happened some time ago, if it turns out that money was illegally donated then it will be returned.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 June 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    UN Commission on Sustainable Development

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 7 June, Official Report, column 13, if he will list the organisations or individuals to whom the United Kingdom report to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development has been or will be distributed.

    The Prime Minister : Copies of the progress report have been sent to the commission’s secretariat and copies are available for delegates attending the commission’s meeting this week and next in New York. Copies were also made available to delegates who attended an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development meeting in Paris last week.

     

    Colombia

    Mr. Caborn : To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to meet the President of Colombia.

    The Prime Minister : I look forward to meeting President Gaviria again during his planned visit to this country from 26 to 30 July

     

    Voluntary Bodies (Grants)

    Mr. Moss : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the total amount paid in grants by central Government Departments to voluntary bodies during the financial year 1991-92; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Central Government funding to voluntary organisations in 1991-92 amounted to £3,387 million. Of this, £2,897 million consisted of payments to voluntary housing associations and £490 million went directly to a variety of voluntary organisations to support provision of services and a wide range of activities and projects.

    The amount spent under individual departmental programmes was as follows :

    Voluntary bodies |£

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Agriculture, Fisheries and Food |178,486

    Defence |11,038,930

    Education and Science |5,503,286

    Sports Council |14,255,000

    Employment |32,693,716

    Environment (including Energy Efficiency Office)

    Direct grants |24,854,376

    Urban programme |54,400,000

    Housing corporation |2,459,327,000

    Countryside Commission |1,115,000

    English Nature |1,057,000

    Rural Development Commission |5,554,000

    UK 2000 initiative |508,000

    Derelict Land Grant |857,000

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office |1,717,114

    Overseas Development Administration |123,657,933

    Health

    Direct grants |43,010,863

    Health Education Authority |1,263,546

    Home Office

    Direct grants |40,124,942

    Equal Opportunities Commission |20,000

    Commission for Racial Equality |773,740

    Northern Ireland Office

    Direct grants |14,586,795

    Housing associations and societies |40,538,706

    Sports Council for Northern Ireland |657,954

    Scottish Office

    Direct grants |20,722,515

    Urban programme |41,932,000

    Housing Associations |234,000,000

    Scottish Natural Heritage |1,660,000

    Highland and Islands Enterprise |1,200,000

    Sports Council for Scotland |1,510,621

    Social Security |16,303,257

    Trade and Industry |12,472,500

    Transport |532,017

    Welsh Office

    Direct grants |10,431,725

    Urban programme |2,957,865

    Joint Finance/Care in the community |224,455

    Development Board for Rural Wales |423,000

    Housing for Wales (Tai Cymru)-grants to housing associations |163,690,067

    Sports Council for Wales and Play Wales Management Committee |1,435,988

    Grand Total |3,387,209,397

    I am placing in the Library of the House a list of voluntary bodies funded by the Government in 1991-92 other than those funded under housing programmes and the urban programme or via non-departmental public bodies.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

    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.

     

    Teaching Company

    Dr. Moonie : To ask the Prime Minister to which Cabinet Minister the Teaching Company management committee reports.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 June 1993] : The Teaching Company management committee is a sub-committee of the Science and Engineering Research Council–SERC–and, therefore, formally reports to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. However, the terms of reference of this committee require it, inter alia, to report to the engineering board of SERC and to the Department of Trade and Industry, as well as to other funding bodies, and to advise SERC’s engineering board, the DTI and others on the development of the scheme.

  • PMQT – 17 June 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

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

    Mr. Evennett : I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he join me in welcoming today’s unemployment figures which show the fourth consecutive fall? Does he agree that that is good news for the unemployed, the economy and Britain?

    The Prime Minister : Yes ; above all, it is good news for those workers and their families who find themselves back in work. I am delighted at the fall of 26,000–the fourth fall in a row. I concede that unemployment remains far too high. It has fallen by nearly 80, 000 since the beginning of the year. Equally encouraging, vacancies are at their highest level for two years. A few months ago, many people expected unemployment to rise throughout the year. Instead, it has fallen in Scotland, Wales and every English region.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister explain–his Minister was asked this question–why only last week the Department of Social Security claimed that the number of people on low incomes who would be worse off as a result of the national insurance increases in the Budget was only 500,000, but yesterday was forced to admit that that was wrong and the real figure was 2.25 million? What sort of advertisement is that for the competence of his Government or their understanding of the effects that his policies have on so many people?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is operating under a misapprehension. Suggestions of a mistake are wrong. My hon. Friend was asked about the number of people below the basic rate tax threshold who will pay more national insurance in 1994-95. The answer he gave on 7 June related to people whose earnings fall below the 20 per cent. tax band. The answer he gave on 16 June related to people whose earnings fall below the 25 per cent. tax band. [Hon. Members :– “Ah.”] Therefore, naturally the figures are different.

    Mr. Smith : The Prime Minister– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. We must hear not only answers, but questions.

    Mr. Smith : The Prime Minister seeks to defend his Department on the basis that it cannot read the questions. The question was the same in both cases, but it received different answers. Leaving that matter aside– [Laughter.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. We are using up valuable time.

    Mr. Smith : It relates to precisely the same issue. Does the Prime Minister recollect saying on that very issue during that election campaign :

    “taxpayers with the lowest incomes will benefit most”?

    Why, then, has he imposed a higher national insurance burden on over 2 million low-paid people? Does he admit that, once again, he has broken his word, or was it just another of those throwaway lines delivered on a wet night somewhere in Dudley?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s suggestion that it might be wise to put that aside is an answer which many people will recall for some time. If he looks at what has happened, he will see that we have raised the threshold for the 20 per cent. band by £500 in the Budget and by a further £500 from next year. Most taxpayers in the lower rate band will gain more from the 20 per cent. lower rate than they will lose from the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister still not understand, as millions of low-paid people do, that putting 1 per cent. on national insurance for people who do not pay income tax is putting up the tax on their income? Why did he say on page 7 of the Conservative party election manifesto :

    “We have reduced the burden of national insurance on low earners”? Was the whole manifesto written on a wet night somewhere in Dudley?

    The Prime Minister : I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it did not sound any better the second time, so perhaps he should put that aside as well. He should look at what has happened, with the introduction of a 20 per cent. tax band and the raising of a 20 per cent. tax band, and I reiterate–as he clearly did not hear it the first time–that most taxpayers in the lower rate band gain more from the 20 per cent. rate than they lose from the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions. In short–so that the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly understands–they are better off under our plans than they ever would have been under his plans, which would have involved the largest increase in direct taxation ever seen this century.

    Mr. Sims : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the current issue of the journal of the Royal Society of Medicine? Is he aware that it includes a survey carried out by a distinguished doctor of general practice in 12 countries in Europe, north America and the far east in which he reaches the conclusion that British is best? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as we proceed with the implementation of the NHS reforms, that will continue to be the case?

    The Prime Minister : The immediate answer to my hon. Friend is no, I have not seen that survey, but, as he has drawn it to my attention, I shall take the opportunity of looking at it. There has been a dramatic improvement both in the resources available to the health services and in the quality of health treatment provided in recent years by the people who work in the service. It is our intention that that should continue– [Interruption.] –and I am sorry if the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) thinks that it is nonsense that the people in the health service are providing a better service. I believe that they are.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is it not the case that in the 17 or so years since the decision was taken to build THORP–the thermal oxide reprocessing plant –at Sellafield, the economics of THORP have collapsed, the risk of nuclear proliferation has increased, international opposition has hardened and the threshold of safe nuclear emissions has been substantially reduced? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that, before a decision is taken to put THORP into operation, the widest possible consultation and debate will be conducted on that dubious project?

    The Prime Minister : THORP is a substantial engineering and export success for this country. It supports some 3,000 jobs and has £9 billion-worth of contracts, which is a powerful vote of confidence in the plant from people around the world who will be its customers. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are considering the inspectors’ reports on the proposed new discharge authorisations for the site. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that it would be inappropriate for me to prejudge their considerations.

    Mr. Stephen : Is my right hon. Friend aware that visiting the House today is a very special group of 21 men who served this country in the Army, Navy and Royal Flying Corps during the great battles of the first world war? Does my right hon. Friend agree that all of us who live in freedom today owe everything we have to those gallant men and their comrades who died in that most terrible of all wars?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. I have sent a message to those very welcome guests to the House today. I am sure they will be welcomed by everyone in the House.

     

    Q2. Mr. Llwyd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

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

    Mr. Llwyd : Given the widespread alarm among millions of constituents about the proposed imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel, which will result in an increased incidence of hypothermia and even more poverty among middle-income groups, will the Prime Minister urge his colleagues to reconsider this pernicious and indiscriminate form of indirect taxation? In so doing, he might just assist his albeit fragile, political future.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern. We have set out a policy that we believe is correct and we have stated that we will take action to assist vulnerable groups. That assistance will be in place before the extra charges are introduced. The hon. Gentleman utterly fails to mention that the cost of fuel has been falling as a result of our policies, not rising astronomically as it did before we came to office.

    Mrs. Roe : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is typically British for commentators and Opposition Members to talk British industry down, yet totally ignore the best manufacturing output figures for five years?

    The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend understates her case a little. They do not just talk Britain down–given the chance, they do it down and do it in. Opposition policies would impose an extra tax on jobs and would be no good for British industry. Raising employers’ costs and introducing the social charter would be no good for employment prospects or employers. The minimum wage would further damage job prospects. Yet again, the use of flying pickets would be legalised. [Hon. Members :– “Boring.”] That is the Labour party’s policy. Labour Members may regard my comments as boring, but people in work regard their policy as a job destruction programme.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

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

    Mr. Bennett : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Mr. Pink on winning his case for unfair dismissal against the Stockport health authority? Does he agree that whistleblowers play a very important part in a democracy? Will he urge the Stockport health authority to reinstate Mr. Pink and ensure that resources are available to improve the staffing of the geriatric wards at the hospital in question?

    The Prime Minister : I am not aware of the details of the case, but if justice has been done I am delighted.

     

    Q4. Mr. Fabricant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

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

    Mr. Fabricant : Following his Cabinet meeting this morning, will my right hon. Friend unequivocally assure the House that–despite the rumours and smears from the Labour party, which preys on the fears of the most vulnerable in our society–the national health service and welfare state always were, are, and for ever will be safe in Conservative hands?

    The Prime Minister : As I indicated a moment or so ago, the health service has improved dramatically during recent years, partly as a result of the increased resources made available to it and partly as a result of the activities of the many dedicated people who work in it. I have no doubt that will continue to be the case in the future. [Interruption.] It is thriving.

     

    Q5. Mr. Win Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 17 June.

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

    Mr. Griffiths : Has the Prime Minister given the President of the Board of Trade a list of the companies that have donated to the Conservative party since 1979? Will the Prime Minister confirm that if the President finds that they have not declared those donations in their accounts, they will all be repaid?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman must understand that British business supports the Conservative party because it believes that our policies are right for British business, the British future and British jobs. Perhaps it is because business understands and applies that test that precious little money from companies goes to the Labour party.

    Sir Jim Spicer : Would my right hon. Friend remember today that, over the past year, the wild and sometimes woolly Members of this House have said that the Government should intervene more directly in Yugoslavia? Will he accept the thanks of most sensible Members for all that he and the Government have done, on behalf not only of the United Kingdom but of the world, in not allowing such intervention to take place?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In my judgment, there is no doubt that it was right to assist with the humanitarian operation, and I believe that the activity of our troops has been widely admired, not just in this country but around the world. They have certainly done a magnificent job.

    There are only two ways of settling the dispute. One is to put in hundreds of thousands of troops for an indefinite period–no one wise wants to do that, and no other country would be prepared to do it. The only alternative is to seek a diplomatic solution allied to the humanitarian aid that we and others have been providing. We still seek that diplomatic solution.

    I understand that Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg had a useful meeting yesterday with the Presidents of Serbia and Croatia. They will continue their negotiations next week. Lord Owen will brief me on Saturday before I go to the European Council. His determined efforts over recent months have done as much as those of any other individual to keep alive the prospect of a political settlement.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 June 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    THORP

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has had on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of representations.

     

    LINK Scheme

    Dr. Moonie : To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of the LINK scheme budget is being transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

    The Prime Minister : LINK is an interdepartmental mechanism for promoting collaborative, precompetitive research involving industry and the science base. As such there is no distinct LINK scheme budget. The Department of Trade and Industry, like other participating Departments, uses money from its overall research and development budget to support LINK programmes and projects where these provide a way of meeting its departmental objectives. The Department’s financial commitment to LINK will continue to be substantial and is unaffected by the transfer of responsibility for the LINK steering group and its secretariat to the Office of Science and Technology.

     

    Teaching Company Scheme

    Dr. Moonie : To ask the Prime Minister if lead responsibility for the teaching company scheme is being transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

    The Prime Minister : At present, no single Department of state or research council has lead responsibility for the teaching company scheme and no decision has been taken to change this arrangement.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Albert Reynolds – 16 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Irish Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds, held in London on Wednesday 16th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good Afternoon. I will invite the Taoiseach to say a word or two in a moment just by way of introduction, and then we will take a few questions from you.

    I think, as you know, we agreed sometime ago to have twice annual summits. On this occasion we have met here in London, we agreed today that we would meet towards the back end of the year in Dublin and I very much look forward to that.

    We have had the opportunity today of discussing firstly bilateral matters, those discussions will continue over dinner, we have not yet discussed detailed matters relating to Northern Ireland and security, those discussions will occur over dinner in a few moments. We have had the opportunity of an in-depth discussion on the European Community summit and a range of matters beyond that.

    I think there are no substantive differences between the Taoiseach and I on the agenda for the European summit, we expect we are going to deal with employment prospects across Europe, we look forward to discussions about subsidiarity, about a number of foreign policy matters, Bosnia of course and possibly even Somalia and Sudan which may well be the subject of discussion at the European summit, we certainly expect to deal with enlargement and the agenda that I think is fairly well laid out before us and has been for some time.

    I am not expecting any substantive surprises at the summit over the next few days and neither is the Taoiseach. The discussions that we will have on the future of employment prospects in the Community will not be discussions that we anticipate will lead to immediate decisions in the Community, I think there are to pick six people’s minds on the importance of Europe becoming competitive not just within Europe but competitive as Europe with the United States, with the Pacific Basin and with Japan and we spent some time discussing those particular matters. Rather than go into the details of the whole range of matters we discussed, leave it to you ask questions if you wish to later, after the Taoiseach has made a few remarks.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    Thank you very much, Prime Minister. I think you have adequately covered the extent of the discussions which have taken place already and of course we look forward to the resumption of talks over dinner tonight, especially in relation to Northern Ireland. In relation to the up-coming summit, I agree with the Prime Minister that we do not expect any areas to develop that will cause either of us any great problems, I think we see the major issues to be discussed and hopefully point to the future direction of policy and how to tackle the very serious unemployment situation throughout Europe. It is now a problem for every member state. As you know, we have very serious unemployment problems in Ireland but then indeed so has every other member state, so I think it is time that we came to grips and point in the future policy directions as to how to tackle that particular problem.

    I think the decisions of Europe will be looking towards Copenhagen for that type of discussion, the type of discussion of issues that affect ordinary citizens’ lives and of course now that we have the Maastricht Treaty almost completed I think what they will be looking forward to is for the Community to settle down and to implement what we have agreed in the Maastricht Treaty.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Just let me add one thing. We have not discussed the substance of security and related matters in Northern Ireland but we did have a very preliminary discussion and I should perhaps make it clear that we would both like the talks process to continue and to deepen, we think that is the right way ahead in the future, we do continue to believe that its objectives are achievable. The next phase of course will involve further bilateral contacts to try and identify as much common ground as possible between the participants to the talks and I hope I need not say that the British and the Irish governments will work closely on the substance, in particular of Strand 3. I say that simply to set out the fact that those general parameters have been discussed prior to more detailed discussions over dinner.

    QUESTION:

    You talk about the objectives of the talks being achievable, what are the objectives of the talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We want to make sure that we can actually reaffirm in Northern Ireland the sort of democratic structure that most people would wish to enjoy, those are the early objectives of the talks. There is a great deal of talent in Northern Ireland that is not actually exercising itself in terms of local government in any way at all, now we need to examine that, that is the first ground clearing exercise, we have to build from the ground upwards, that is the purpose of the three-stranded approach and of course Strand 3 is a bilateral approach between the governments.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    I just want to add that both governments are committed to finding the ways and means of resumption of talks, we are fully committed to the three strand process, we believe that it is the way forward in relation to it and we want to resume the talks on the basis that we had them on 1 March 1991 where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and of course in particular the third strand between the two governments, we will be looking at ways and means between ourselves as to how we can make our contribution towards a resumption of those talks, to which we are both fully committed.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The most obvious point of course is the shared wish to see an end to the violence. Now that is a shared wish not just between the Taoiseach and with me, that is a shared wish I think amongst the overwhelming majority of people in both parts of the island of Ireland. So if one wanted to have an objective, that of course is the most immediate objective in everyone’s mind.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    It is the first objective indeed that I set myself out when I took over the job of Taoiseach, that there were two objectives I had and one was to find a formula for peace in Northern Ireland which will create the environment for talks to take place on the future and how people can learn to live together and work together for the betterment of all.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Smith has said that Mr Paisley should not be allowed to hold a veto on the resumption of the talks, if all the other parties agreed to go ahead, he said, they should go ahead without Mr Paisley, do you agree with this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am in the business of getting all the parties together for talks, I do not think it is of help in bringing the parties together to get those talks started for me to indulge in public exchanges about what one participant of the talks should do. The substantive matter is that I want the talks to continue, I want everybody to take part in the talks and I am not going to engage in public badinage that might make that more difficult.

    QUESTION:

    Was the [Indistinct] Commission discussed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have not discussed it yet, it may turn up later.

    QUESTION:

    What is the current assessment of when it may be possible to resume the talks on Northern Ireland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I could not give you a date at the moment, I would like the talks, and I think the Taoiseach would share this view, though he will speak for himself in a minute, I would like the talks to resume as speedily as possible. I think perhaps more important than the fact that I would like the talks to resume as speedily as possible, I think all the people who live in Northern Ireland, whichever community they come from, would like to see the politicians talking again so that they can begin to seek to resolve these problems. I hope that will prove to be possible, we will certainly do all we can to ensure it is.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    I believe the political leaders on all sides are looking to the politicians to make whatever contribution is necessary to re-start the talks process and I look forward to hearing from Sir Patrick tonight on the results of his meetings with political leaders so far and to then make an assessment, an evaluation of how both governments can contribute to the resumption of the talks process.

    QUESTION:

    There seems to be a certain impatience in Northern Ireland among people who think that devolution should be re-established first and should be built from the bottom up and that tying it to strands 2 and 3 is delaying a return to democracy of which the Prime Minister spoke.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you had lived through the last 20 years in Northern Ireland – forgive me, you may have done, I do not know – but anyone who has lived through the last 20 years in Northern Ireland has a right to be impatient. But I think what we have to build is a structure that is going to last. We are approaching that in the way we think is most likely to achieve that end, that is why we believe we need to go through the stranded approach to talks so that we can carry consent. Above all, what we need in Northern Ireland is an end to the violence and consent for the developments that have been made, and it is upon that basis that we have approached the talks in this particular way. But as to people feeling impatient, I fully understand and sympathise with that.

    QUESTION:

    But is there a blueprint being prepared by Sir Patrick?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends what you mean by a blueprint. Of course the Secretary of State is examining how we take the matter forward and how we encourage the talks to go forward, but I do not know quite whether one would call that a blueprint.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] for the British and Irish government to lean on the local politicians to get them to accept not only to come to the talks but to accept a settlement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One man’s leaning is another man’s persuasion. We are seeking to persuade all the participants to return to the talks, that is the way to reach a lasting settlement in our view.

    QUESTION:

    Are you taking Mr [indistinct] advice in asking the Taoiseach to do something about removing Articles 2 and 3 of the Republic’s constitution?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going into my private discussions with the Taoiseach, I am keen to make sure that we look at all the elements of getting a proper settlement and that is the Taoiseach’s view too, but I am not discussing that in public.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    I think there should be an appreciation, there are many hundreds of thousands of people out there who live normal lives, who want to continue to live normal lives, there is quite extensive bridge-building between the two communities, we want to encourage economic cooperation between the north and south and this is a way to demonstrate to people how they can live better together, how they can work together to improve the lot of both communities in the North of Ireland and I think that has its own contribution to make. In relation to the overall talks process, we are quite clear that we do not want to condemn the future generation in the North of Ireland to another 23 – 25 years of violence which they have suffered up to now, we think there is marvellous resilience in the community up there to continue to live ordinary lives and we want to use the opportunity, and any opportunity we can get, to try and first of all find a formula for peace up there and then hopefully to get people to talk together.

    QUESTION:

    Do you see a difference in principle of the union between England and Scotland and England and Northern Ireland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is the principle of consent. We have always made it clear in terms of Northern Ireland that no changes in the position of Northern Ireland could be obtained without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. And as I have said in speeches in Scotland up to and during the general election, you need to retain the consent of people in Scotland for the union, so that is I think a similar position.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think your meeting today would raise hopes in Northern Ireland of an improvement in the security situation because surely that is uppermost in the minds of most people?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Taoiseach and I have known one another over many years, both as Ministers before he became Taoiseach and I became Prime Minister, we are used to doing business together, we have done business together in more than one capacity over a number of years. These meetings are regular meetings, they are not emergency meetings, they are not crisis meetings, it is one of a whole series of regular meetings that have gone on for a while, I instituted them a couple of years or so ago, they are going to go on continuing. I think the community of interest that exists both in the European Community, beyond the European Community and in terms of Irish matters make it absolutely right that we should have these twice yearly summits.

    I do not want people under any of these summits to suddenly develop unrealistic expectations, if we have learned anything about the history of Ireland as a whole it is that patience is a virtue and patience is a necessity. So nobody should reach unrealistic expectations. Of course we will discuss security matters, we always discuss security matters and we rarely talk about security matters beyond our private discussions, I am sure that we will discuss them later tonight.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you both how you expect the European Community to respond to the renewed impatience from President Clinton and his avowed support for arming the [indistinct] and indeed air strikes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is nothing fresh to say, you know the British government’s position about that, it is as it was. I am sure the European Community summit will spend some time discussing Bosnia in all its aspects.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    I think we are all horrified by what we see on our screens every day of the week in relation to Bosnia and I think everybody knows that the view of the Irish government, the view of the British government, in relation to it and undoubtedly it will be discussed at the summit and hopefully we will be able to contribute to some way forward in the whole sad tragic situation of Bosnia.

    QUESTION:

    Was the question of a visit by The Queen raised or discussed?

    MR REYNOLDS:

    No.

    QUESTION:

    Have you had a chance to read Sir Edward Heath’s comments on the security situation where he said that you needed to lift the issue of terrorism higher on the political agenda, appoint a senior Cabinet Minister as a terrorism supremo and introduce a centralised counter-terrorist agency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I share with Ted Heath the importance of the issue, I do not share with him the way in which we should deal with the issue. It is very high on the agenda, it could scarcely be higher on the agenda and it will remain there.

    QUESTION:

    You talk about the need to get the parties around the table again, Sir Patrick Mayhew is talking to them to try and do that, how do you yourself think that they can be persuaded to get back into negotiations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You might have asked me that question before they began negotiations and you would be right to, you would say how are you ever going to get these people to sit round the table together, they never have done in the past? But we have crossed that Rubicon, they have sat round the table, they have made progress, they have made far more progress sitting around the table in discussion, parties that had never previously done that, than anybody realistically expected. The advent of the local elections in Northern Ireland and other matters have broken that continuous discussion for a while. I think it is a matter of persuasion and patience and I think we will get them back round the table. You ask me precisely how, if I knew precisely how, I would have done it last week, but that can be done I have no doubt.

    QUESTION:

    Is it conceivable that new devolutionary arrangements for Northern Ireland will provide a role for Dublin or Brussels?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    For Brussels, no I do not think so. We have got to continue, we have a process, I do not think it is at all helpful to start inventing fresh processes when we have a process in being, it undercuts the work that is being done and there is work being done, we have got a process, the Taoiseach and I would like to see that process reactivated. Both of us are entirely clear that that is the right way for us to proceed. So no I do not think an intermediary from any external source is likely to be helpful.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, the people in Northern Ireland, go and talk to the people in Northern Ireland, not just the politicians, go and actually talk to the people in Northern Ireland, it does not matter whether you talk to the Protestants or whether you talk to the Catholics, go and ask them whether they want another 20 years like the last 20 years and they will tell you ‘No’. Go and ask them whether they would like the politicians to be talking and they will tell you ‘Yes’. Ask them whether they want to actually see the end of violence from whatever source it comes and they will say ‘Yes’. We all have to try and deal with that cry from the heart and I think that is a good reason for optimism.

    MR REYNOLDS:

    That is exactly the message that I get from my own contacts on both sides in both communities in the North of Ireland, they want to see all the political leaders, both north and south and the British government and the Irish government all involved in the talks process. They recognise that the road to violence is a cruel one, it is the road to nowhere and that there are so many families up there, they have been hooked by this, they do not want to inflict that on their children. Remember now at this stage that we have young people in the North of Ireland, 21 years of age, they were born into violence, they have not known anything else.

    We certainly have a responsibility and both of us recognise that to try in every way we can not to inflict that type of lifestyle on the next generation and for the next 25 years we do not want to see that type of violence extend into the families of people in Northern Ireland and we are going to use every initiative that we can think of to try and change that situation and get people talking which is what people in Northern Ireland want them to do.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 June 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Correspondence

    Ms Ruddock : To ask the Prime Minister when the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, can expect to receive a reply to her letters of 8 February, 31 March and 4 May regarding the concerns of her constituents, Paul and Elisabeth Towlson.

    The Prime Minister : Shortly.

     

    Public Expenditure Review

    Mr. Dewar : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects the current review of public expenditure being carried out by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to be completed.

    The Prime Minister : We expect to complete the reviews by the end of this Parliament, although preliminary conclusions from the first four reviews of social security, health, education and home affairs should inform this year’s public expenditure survey.

     

    India

    Mr. Llwyd : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he made and what assurances he received on human rights from the Indian Government during his visit to the country in January this year; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I raised British concerns about human rights with the Indian Prime Minister. He assured me of his Government’s commitment to respect human rights and determination to take firm action against wrongdoers. He also confirmed that he would be introducing legislation in the spring session of the Indian Parliament to set up an independent Human Rights Commission. This legislation was tabled on 14 May.

     

    Allivane International

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received since January 1991 on the role played by Allivane International in exporting arms and military equipment to Iran.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of representations from the hon. Member and from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) since January 1991 on the role of Allivane International in exporting arms and military equipment to Iran. Allegations about illegal exports by this company were investigated by Her Majesty’s Customs in 1987-88. No prosecution was begun.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 June.

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

     

    Overseas Visits

    Mr. Sedgemore : To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions the procedure of paragraph 74 of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” has been invoked in relation to official visits overseas; and at what total cost for the latest available year.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 14 June 1993] : The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.