The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Bill Clinton

  • Mr Major’s NATO Summit Statement – 10 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement at the NATO Summit on 10th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    NATO’s fundamental role

    NATO has been the cornerstone of post-war Europe’s security. It has been by far the most successful collective security organisation in history.

    Now is not the time to weaken the cornerstone.

    But we cannot take it for granted. Keeping our security insurance up to date requires a continuing commitment from all of us.

    US Commitment to Europe

    President Clinton said yesterday that the core of American security remained with Europe.

    I warmly welcome the renewed commitment by the United States.

    NATO has been vital to the transatlantic relationship; and the American contribution continues to be vital to NATO.

    The need for change

    NATO must adapt to meet new challenges, while preserving its effectiveness.

    The main challenges are clear:

    – what relationships to develop with the new democracies to our East;

    – how to organise ourselves politically and militarily, to engage in new missions to promote and restore peace;

    – how to ensure that NATO adjusts to the emerging security and defence identity of the European Union.

    Enlargement\Russia\partnership for peace

    It must be our objective to consolidate democracy in all of the countries to the east now embracing it; to develop a closer partnership with them; and to help to enhance their security and stability.

    These countries are not all alike, and NATO’s relationships with them will differ. Partnership for Peace recognises that. It is, rightly, an evolutionary and transitional process without a predetermined end result.

    We must be clear about a number of points:

    The process could clearly lead to the admission of new members. The door is open.

    We cannot yet define who will be able to meet the obligations of membership, or when.

    Those who wish to join have much work to do, with our assistance, to prepare themselves.

    The Poles, Czechs and Hungarians are European peoples with fast-developing democracies and a strong claim to membership.

    There must be no new dividing line in Europe; no recreation of opposing blocs.

    We must show that NATO is a genuine partner for a democratic Russia, not an opponent. It is therefore essential for NATO to build a closer relationship with Russia, which acknowledges that country’s special status.

    Partnership for Peace will provide real and practical benefits to NATO and to Partners; through a non-discriminatory, gradual and incremental approach, with the prospect of eventual membership for some.

    Equipping NATO for new tasks\Combined Joint Task Forces\European Defence identity

    NATO itself needs further change to ensure we are better prepared and equipped for new missions such as peacekeeping, peace enforcement, humanitarian and sanctions operations.

    Combined Joint Task Forces are a sensible and imaginative concept, to supplement but not to replace the Integrated Military Structure.

    The UK will play a leading role in the Combined Joint Task Force in the NATO HQ at AFNORWEST in High Wycombe. We also have a strong contribution to make in AFCENT in Germany.

    These more flexible structures will also help NATO to be more responsive to the European Defence aspirations. Europe cannot afford and does not want separate forces, separate HQs or separate command and control structures.

    I support the idea of a further review of NATO’s military structures designed to promote adaptation to new missions and to facilitate a more specific European profile within the Alliance.

    Counter-proliferation

    I support the US approach on counter-proliferation. The defence-related aspects should continue to be seen in wider political context of non-proliferation policy. I am glad that NATO’s work can be carried forward by all Sixteen Allies, including France.

    Former Yugoslavia

    NATO has so far done efficiently what it has been asked to do: support for the United Nations, sanctions enforcement in the Adriatic, air operations in support of UNPROFOR and the no-fly zone, and planning for a peace implementation operation.

    As Bosnia struggles through another desperate winter of war, we face very serious questions which cannot be resolved today.

    On the one hand, the parties purport to be negotiating seriously while, on the other, they are bent on prosecuting the war, with UN humanitarian forces from my own and other countries operating with difficulty between them.

    We shall remain in close touch with our partners in UNPROFOR and NATO. We shall consider with them what realistic help we can continue to give to keep Bosnians alive and encourage the peace process.

    Conclusion

    Europe is still in flux following the end of the Soviet Union and of the cold war. A NATO which continues to change rapidly and relevantly will remain central to the Euro-Atlantic cause. Partnership for Peace, combined Joint Task Forces, the new focus on counter-proliferation, are important steps along the way. Follow up work will have full UK support. We were at the forefront of NATO’s creation and will be equally active in its transformation.

  • Mr Major’s Pool Interview in Tokyo – 7 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s pool media interview held in Tokyo on Wednesday 7th July 1993.

    MICHAEL BRUNSON:

    Prime Minister, the agreement at the so-called quad talks, very very big tariff cuts. Are you cracking open the champagne, throwing your hat in the air?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am certainly very pleased. They are very large tariff reductions indeed and across a very wide range. It is what we have been seeking for a long time and for an external trading nation like ourselves who live by our exports it is extremely important, not only big tariff cuts but big tariff cuts where we wanted to have them.

    MICHAEL BRUNSON:

    Tariff cuts and all of that, it doesn’t mean a great deal I suspect to the man-in-the-street and woman-in-the-street. What does it actually mean in terms of how it will affect life in Britain?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me try and illustrate that. I said the tariff cuts are in areas of importance to us. People who work in the ceramics industry, the glass industry, people who produce high-quality textiles will now find that markets like the United States that were difficult for them are open to them, they will be able to export more, produce more and that is going to create jobs.

    It is very difficult to be precise as to what this will mean for jobs over the next decade or so, it is very much a rule of thumb guess at the moment but on the basis of the calculations others have done, including the United States, I would think probably we are talking over the next decade or so of an extra 250,000-plus jobs, perhaps 350,000. That does mean something to people in this country.

    ROBIN OAKLEY:

    Prime Minister, this is a package of agreed measures, is not yet an agreement. What badgering and bullying have you got to do to turn this into a full GATT agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    85% of the GATT agreement is now practically together. I think the first thing to say is that these trade talks are infinitely bigger than anything we have seen before, it touches all sorts of areas that simply were not covered by agreements like this before. 80-90% of it is now in place. There is still a good deal more to be done. We hope we can push that through during the rest of this year. A lot to be done, it will be difficult but the prize at the end of that is very substantial for all of us, for the United Kingdom and for every other trading nation.

    ROBIN OAKLEY:

    One of the biggest problems may be with one of your European Community partners. Do you think the French can be persuaded to go along with this or could they yet sabotage the whole GATT agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope so. The French, like ourselves, are an industrial nation as well as being an agricultural nation. They too have very great interests in the industrial aspects of this particular agreement and in the service aspects so there is a lot in it for France. They still have some reserves – some concerns – about agriculture; these are matters that hopefully will be sorted out during the rest of the year. Quite apart from that, France has very great interest, as well as us, in a satisfactory agreement.

    ADAM BOULTON:

    The Americans have suggested that President Clinton should take most of the credit for this. Mickey Kantor said that he concentrated everyone’s mind. Who do you give the credit to for achieving this breakthrough?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think everyone has been working. We certainly have been working for this, as you know, for a long time. I recall raising it at the Houston summit two years ago. I have sat there at three successive GI summits at which we have pledged ourselves to get an agreement and we have then gone away and pushed and pushed for an agreement. I don’t think anyone doubts in the European Community that Britain has pushed more forcefully for an agreement than any other European Community nation but I think everyone is entitled to a share of the credit if and when it is finally sewn up. It isn’t yet finally sewn up, when it is done, let us all then be grateful for it.

    ADAM BOULTON:

    Is this perhaps an occasion when the much maligned G7 jamboree has actually worked, that the leaders have got together and concentrated their political will and that has put pressure on the negotiators?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the fact of the meeting has certainly put huge pressure on the negotiators. It has been clear for some time that we actually needed this agreement on market access, the reduction of tariffs, by the time of this particular meeting and I think each of the G7 Heads have put a considerable amount of pressure on the negotiators to reach an agreement so yes, I think it has helped a great deal.

    MICHAEL BRUNSON:

    But isn’t it true that this whole GATT saga, which has been going on now for five or six years or something of that sort, is littered with false dawns? I remember for example in Washington you were issuing ultimatums telling everybody to wrap it all up in a fortnight. How can you be certain that it is going to stick this time and that people will be signing agreements in Geneva say in December?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, of course, it is precisely because I was issuing ultimatums some time ago and others as well that we have actually pushed forward and dealt with the problems that then existed. There were problems, it looked like it was blocked, we pushed it, we have moved forward. That is exactly what we must do in the next few months.

    People mustn’t underestimate what this will mean. If there is one single thing that will give a boost to confidence and world trade and as a consequence of that growth and jobs and prosperity it is a successful outcome to the Uruguay Round. It is quite the most important thing we have had for many years so there is a huge prize there; everyone must push for it.

    MICHAEL BRUNSON:

    But you really think come December people will be putting names, signatures, on paper, say, in Geneva?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It won’t be for lack of effort by the British if they are not. I certainly hope so.

    ROBIN OAKLEY:

    This could be the last summit of its kind if you have your way. What exactly are the reforms that you want to see in the G7 summit process and what support are you getting for them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I just want to make it more informal. I think the idea of the Heads of Government and perhaps on occasions other Ministers getting together to talk about matters that affect all of us in what economically is a shrinking world is a very good idea. I don’t object to that at all. The better Heads of Government get to know one another, the safer world we will all live in. What I do want to cut down is some of the jamboree aspects of these very large gatherings, perhaps too much ceremony, perhaps too many artificial additions to communiques at the end of our discussions.

    What is vital I think for everyone is that Heads of Government can have close contact and can speak freely and frankly to one another about problems. I don’t want that artificially pre-cooked. I want them to have the opportunity of free and open conversation so I would like a great deal more informality on these occasions in future.

    ROBIN OAKLEY:

    A lot of you are suffering from political traumas at home. Indeed, this meeting has been described as a meeting of the world’s strongest countries and the world’s weakest leaders. Do you feel that your clout is weakened here by the fact that there is an opinion poll at home this morning calling you the most unpopular Prime Minister this century?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is true of everyone here, not some people here. Everyone here is facing precisely the same problem. There is a malaise about. People are concerned. I think it is partly a result of the recession and it spreads right the way across the industrial world. People are concerned. We had many years in the 1980s when across the industrialised world there was steady growth, each year people felt a little better off, there was security, a certainty.

    Suddenly the recession has cut that off and people are bewildered I think, they are not quite sure what has happened. In each individual country, they believe it is solely the responsibility of their particular government. When we meet together, as you have just observed, all these governments are in exactly the same position and we need to work together to bring the world economy round out of this recessionary phase and back into growth. That is what people want – certainty, confidence, growth, prospects and hope again – and that is what we are seeking to provide.

    ADAM BOULTON:

    President Clinton also picked up on that notion of a malaise. Pointing for example to Italy and Japan and indeed to the United States, he said that the malaise has been something which has forced the politicians into reforms and he cited funding changes in the United States. Why is it that you don’t think the British system needs reform when so many others are changing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But I have been arguing for a whole series of economic changes. I did so at Copenhagen and I am doing so here again. I think we have to address some of the long-term problems that have been there that perhaps were masked by the buoyant growth there was across the world through much of the 1980s. Once one strips that away – and the recession has effectively done that – I think you can see some structural problems in each and every one of the nations gathered here at the G7 that need to be dealt with.

    We have been discussing that today. The malaise you refer to has been referred in our discussions today by almost every Head of Government. It isn’t uniquely a British phenomenon, it is a worldwide phenomenon. People are now beginning to address it. I think that is very attractive and the more we address it the more we can explain to people why there are difficulties and how we propose to get out of the difficulties, the more likely we are that they will give us their support in doing so.

    The seven nations gathered here have I think beyond doubt the most sophisticated electorates in the world. Let us explain to them what the long-term difficulties are and how we propose to get out of them. Some of the ways of getting out of them may be difficult, they may be painful but if people know what the problem is and what the solution is, I believe they will accept that solution provided they are satisfied it is in their interests and in the interest of their country to do so.

    ADAM BOULTON:

    With reference to Britain, what are those long-term changes and painful changes which people should be facing up to?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a series of things that I have been talking about for some months and they won’t be particularly fresh to you. We certainly have to get rid of the fiscal deficit that we have – the fact that the Government is spending a good deal more than its revenues will allow – that has to be dealt with. We have to look at many of the costs that are in danger of rendering all of European, including British, industry uncompetitive to Japan, to the United States and to the Pacific Basin. We have to look at regulation, red tape, those frustrating controls that prevent small, medium and large-sized businesses from expanding and creating the jobs we need. That is an illustration of the changes we need, by no means an inclusive list but those are the sort of things we all have to address if we are to get our economies growing in the way we want to see them grow.

    ROBIN OAKLEY:

    Bilateral meetings on these occasions can be as important as the main round-table sessions. President Clinton, while he has been here, has been putting all the emphasis on relations between America and Japan and America and Asia. Do you feel that the United States has a new focus and are you worried about the state of the special relationship after the differences with the US on Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not in the slightest. The United States and the United Kingdom have a community of interests. We are very close together. We have a common outlook on almost every problem, of course not every one but on almost every problem around the world we have a common outlook. We are in regular contact at all levels of government, not just my level speaking regularly to President Clinton, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at official level, We have far closer contact with the United States than they would have with many other countries. Of course, on these occasions they seek to make up that deficit of contact with people when they are here. We have that contact all the time. I see no difficulty at all now, there hasn’t been in the past, isn’t now and won’t be in the future over that very close identify of interests and common interests that we have with the United States.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Tokyo – 7 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Tokyo, held on Wednesday 7th July 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what can you us about the movement we hear reported from the so-called Quad talks, does this mean that GATT is on its way?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It looks as though it may, yes, it looks as though the talks have ended satisfactorily, I do not have all the details yet so I will spare you the details I do have, but it does look as though it is probable we will now have a market access agreement. That is important not just in itself but because it means we can then move forward to the multilateral talks back in Geneva and towards a GATT settlement, that is very important. It sounds technical but what it means is more trade, open market and more jobs, so it is very important.

    QUESTION:

    In short, why does it matter?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It matters precisely for the fact that it will actually create jobs. If one can free up world trade there will be more world trade, the more world trade there is the more goods need to be produced, the more goods are produced the more people are working producing them, so in a single word it means jobs.

    QUESTION:

    Does it mean a transfer of jobs away from Western and developed economies?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I do not think so, that point is sometimes put, doesn’t it mean a transfer of jobs? But a general growth of trade, which is what a satisfactory agreement on GATT will mean, removing trade barriers and removing tariffs, that will help people in every country around the world and I think it will mean more jobs around the world. The estimates are that it will increase world trade very substantially, it removes barriers to many British exports when it is concluded, textiles for example, Scotch whisky perhaps, a whole range of areas that are of very great importance to us. Undilutedly good news when the round is completed, today it looks as though we have made a further step forward.

    QUESTION:

    How much extra bullying would you now need to do to turn a Quad agreement into a proper GATT agreement and are you worried that the French Prime Minister is not here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The French President is here. There is a lot of badgering being done over the last couple of years, no-one is in any doubt at all about the importance that the British have given to this particular settlement, it has gone on for some time. I wish we had settled the whole matter last year or the year before, but we have not. We have now made a great deal of progress. A substantial amount of a final agreement is already in place, there is still quite a lot to be done hut one ought not to overlook the amount that is now already in the bag and is agreed. We will just have to push and push and push, however unpopular it makes us, to try and get a final settlement later on this year.

    QUESTION:

    This will nevertheless have to go through the European Council, are you confident that all twelve member states of the Community will be on side on this and that means specifically the French?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is actually agreed by qualified majority vote, it does not need unanimity in the European Community, it is a matter that is dealt with by qualified majority vote.

    QUESTION:

    You are confident the Community will agree it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it would be folly if the Community were not to agree to go forward.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think we will get agreement by the end of the year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope so, the prize is very great. If there is one thing around the world that people are concerned about it is to see an increase in the growth of world trade, an increase in confidence and the creation of jobs. There are 23 million people in the G7 countries who are without work, there are 17 million people, rising, in the European Community without work. Now here is the biggest single policy change that can help to create new jobs, everyone should snatch at that.

    QUESTION:

    What are you likely to say in the world economy debate this afternoon?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have to remove many of the barriers to growth, there are a whole range of them, one of them of course is the trade barriers that we have been talking about that are subject to negotiation in the GATT round, others are the degree of deregulation that exists, there are a whole series of supply side changes that are necessary, a greater concentration on skills and education, a whole raft of things that I will set out this afternoon. But in essence we have to address long term problems that have suddenly become clear across the world as a result of the recession, if we address those problems now we will set the right basics in place for growth throughout the ’90s and greater prosperity in the ’90s. So it is removing those barriers to growth that I regard as the most important thing.

    QUESTION:

    It is deregulation really?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Deregulation is a part of it, it is by no means the sum total of what needs to be done, but deregulation is certainly an important part of it.

    QUESTION:

    You have a bilateral today with President Clinton, after the disagreements on Bosnia and the American decision on nuclear testing, how much patching up have you got to do?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no need for patching up. President Clinton and I speak regularly on the phone, we had a very lengthy conversation about this particular summit and related matters on Saturday, we will be meeting in the margins of this particular summit to discuss a range of things. There is no patching up job to do, there is a whole raft of areas where we are in complete agreement and I suspect the principal agenda for this summit is one of those areas where we are in total agreement.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] changing the balance of power in the world, how hard are you having to fight to maintain Britain’s position at the table at G7 and at the UN?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not having to fight at all hard, Britain’s place at the G7 and at the United Nations is entirely secure, the only time it is ever questioned is when people like you ask me questions like that, otherwise it is not in any doubt whatsoever.

    QUESTION:

    Why is the New Statesman settlement so low for you personally?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The important thing in the New Statesman settlement, and all the other elements of that settlement, was that people acknowledged that the libel was untrue, that has been acknowledged, everyone concerned has now paid damages. The size of the damages was never a relevant factor, the confirmation that the stories were untrue and unfounded was the relevant factor, that has now been obtained from everybody concerned with the case, those who spread the libel, those who printed the individual publications, all of them have now indicated that it is unfounded and untrue, I am satisfied with that, it is now no longer an issue I need concern myself with, it is dead and gone.

    QUESTION:

    But the New Statesman is claiming a moral victory and there is a suggestion that you have accepted these low damages in order to avoid appearing in the witness box?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a curious moral victory when they admit it cost them a quarter of a million pounds in total, that is a very curious moral victory. They have admitted what they said was unfounded, they are not in a position to repeat, they cannot repeat it, it has cost them a quarter of a million pounds, if that is a moral victory it is not the sort of moral victory they would like every week.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Tokyo – 6 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview held in Tokyo on Tuesday 6th July 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, President Clinton has talked today of the crisis of slow growth in the developed world, what are you going to be able to do about it here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think he is right about that. Right the way across Europe, in Japan, in the United States, right across the industrialised world there has been very slow growth, the only thing that has grown faster of course has been unemployment and there are 23 million people unemployed amongst the G7 nations here. So I think we have to make that a centre-piece for the discussions we have over the next few days. No-one is suddenly going to find a magical solution that will put all those people back into work but what we do need is to make sure all countries have the right policies to produce growth. Britain is coming into growth, I want to see other countries coming back as well.

    QUESTION:

    You said after Munich that you would badger and bully until the GATT negotiations came to a solution, who do you blame for the fact that that solution has not yet been achieved?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not in the business of distributing blame. What I am in the business of doing is continuing to badger and bully, we do need a settlement, it is no less vital now than it was months ago at Munich, no less vital than it was a couple of years ago and I think it is important we make some progress. I very much hope that by the end of this summit we will have a market access agreement opening up markets, lowering tariffs, increasing trade and enabling more jobs to be created. I hope that we will have that and I hope we will also have an agreement that we can return to the multilateral trade talks in Geneva, that I hope will be achieved this week. It will not be easy to achieve, there will undoubtedly be difficulties, that is perfectly clear, but I think that is what we must aim at.

    QUESTION:

    Is it conceivable when there has been a failure for 4 years to sort out the GATT talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you need to ask the people who have not been able to reach agreement, it is not the British.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not the British, there are other people who have particular difficulties in their own countries, the Cairns Group by and large can sign up to the agreement, there are other countries that cannot, we are urging them to do so. I believe that Britain could reach a final agreement on the trade talks very speedily, we will be encouraging other people to do the same.

    QUESTION:

    A domestic question, if I may, are you going to try and repair the defeat on the rail bill in the Lords?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not had a chance to discuss it with John MacGregor yet, I only heard of it as I got on the plane to leave for here, but I think it is probable we will, yes.

    QUESTION:

    You will try and reverse it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is probable we will but I have not yet discussed it with the Secretary of State.

    QUESTION:

    The Japanese have indicated today officially that they are putting in a request to join the Permanent Members of the Security Council, would you now be ready to support this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have never ruled out the question of Security Council reform, I think it is something that has; to be taken very gently. There are a lot of ramifications to that, one has to look at the competing demands from a number of countries who would like to become Permanent Members, Japan clearly has a case, there are a number of other countries as well. So I think it is a very wide issue and I think it is one that will involve us for some time in discussion.

    QUESTION:

    What about Bosnia, is this a forgotten subject at this summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think anyone could forget Bosnia, I do not think we could and I do not think we should. It is not the centre-piece or this particular summit, I think the two centre-pieces of this summit, if you can have two centre-pieces, are unemployment and growth and the need for progress in the trade negotiations. But I do not think anyone pushes the horror of Bosnia to one side, it is with us all the time.

    QUESTION:

    The Japanese Prime Minister, when talking to President Clinton, said that the gap between imports and exports are beyond our control, we cannot play with GDP figures. He does not sound like a man who is prepared to do business on this issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I had not heard that, Michael, no doubt that is one of the many matters we will discuss perhaps most obviously in our first sessions on employment and on the economies. I am sure a range of issues like that will come up.

    QUESTION:

    It is going to take a lot of give and take to get some trade agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, but I think I had better comment on it after we have had the give and take and we see what emerges from it.

    QUESTION:

    Do you like the idea of a Jobs Summit, as proposed by President Clinton?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I have not seen the details of what he has said, I understand he has in mind getting experts together to examine what might be done, I see no objection to that, I think it might be productive. No doubt he will raise it at the summit.

    QUESTION:

    Would you send Britain’s Employment Minister to such a summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think here we have all got something to learn from one another, I shall certainly be advancing the case for a whole series of supply side changes in countries right the way around the world. If this is a practical proposal that can be of use to us, of course we would take part.

    QUESTION:

    Do you expect and hope that this will be the last summit of its kind?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have made no secret of the fact that I would like to reform the summit, I would like more talk of trade opportunities and perhaps fewer photo opportunities. They summit is a huge gathering. There are, if I may say so, 11,000 journalists here, I am not sure that perhaps that is the best use of 11,000 journalists. Perhaps if we had smaller summits, more cohesive summits, perhaps if there were not such great expectations built up for them beforehand, if we could have the quiet, reflective and frank discussions that I think Heads of Government should have more frequently, then perhaps they would be more productive. I would hope we can move in that direction after this summit.

  • PMQT – 29 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Couchman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

    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. Couchman : I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he contact President Clinton today, as he contemplates new measures against the Bosnian Serbs, and convey to him the grave reservations of many people in Europe about the possibility of air strikes against any targets, strategic or otherwise, in Bosnia? Will he remind the President of the paramount need to secure the safety of United Nations troops presently serving in Bosnia, including British soldiers, in giving vital humanitarian aid?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital to minimise the risk to the United Nations troops and, of course, to the humanitarian aid civilians who are also there and who, for so long and so bravely, have carried out the humanitarian operation. We will take whatever steps are necessary to achieve that.

    Our other objectives in Bosnia are to do all we can to deter further Serbian attacks and to maximise pressure on all parties to accept the cease fire and a negotiated settlement. But at the moment we are not excluding any viable option which might help to achieve those objectives. We are consulting our allies, especially the United States and our United Nations allies in France and elsewhere, and have expressed our views very clearly to them.

    Mr. John Smith : As the horrendous situation in Bosnia worsens even further and as no clear policy has yet emerged from the international community which would effectively deter continued Serb advance, is it not the case that the acknowledged risks of limited air strikes are increasingly outweighed by the very real dangers of continued inaction? Is there not a serious danger that if another policy is not adopted, moves will be made to lift the arms embargo, which would merely intensify the conflict?

    The Prime Minister : I share the observations that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made about the lifting of the arms embargo. That does present special difficulties. As I have said before, and reiterate now, we cannot rule out further measures for maximising pressure on the Serbs. We are consulting closely our allies and partners. We must, of course, weigh carefully the implications of air strikes for the removal of the arms embargo or, indeed, any other proposals that may arise in our consultations or in the debate in the House this afternoon.

    We must bear particularly in mind the need to sustain the United Nations humanitarian effort. It is all too easy to overlook the fact that, but for that effort over the winter, many hundreds of thousands possibly would have died. The fact that it has continued has been of immense benefit.

    Mr. John Smith : As the days and weeks go by, and the Serbs continue to flout the authority of the United Nations, is it not increasingly clear that if the Serbs are to be stopped, they must be given an ultimatum that is backed by a credible threat to their lines of communication and supply in Bosnia?

    The Prime Minister : I have told the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I will reiterate it, that we have not ruled out options. We are discussing options and it is best to consult on them, consider them, examine the probability of success and the possibility of difficulties and then reach a final conclusion.

     

    Q2. Mr. Duncan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mr. Duncan : While I recognise our success in bringing down the level of inflation and thereby laying the foundations for economic recovery, does the Prime Minister agree that a rapid rise in house prices is not necessarily good news? Should not we aim for a sustainable recovery, based on exports and investments and, at all costs, avoid a return to the cycle of boom and bust?

    The Prime Minister : I share that objective with my hon. Friend. We have said from the outset that we want a recovery that is steady and sustainable, and that is what we have repeatedly taken action to achieve over the past two years. We have said that recovery would follow the reduction of inflation. We got inflation down from 11 per cent. to 2 per cent., and it seems that recovery is now following. As a result of that, we were able to cut interest rates, but that had to follow the reduction in inflation and not precede it. We have worked extremely hard, and it has been extremely difficult for everyone during that period, to get the fundamentals right. We now have them right and I have no intention of throwing away that advantage.

    Mr. Ashdown : Will the Prime Minister pause for a moment in his campaign of self-congratulation– [Interruption.] –and recollect– [Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister pause for a minute in his campaign of self-congratulation and recollect that the price of his policies for Britain has been 3 million unemployed, borrowing at £1 billion a week, a devalued pound and a burden of debt that will not be paid off until the end of the century? Does he really think that that is cause for self-congratulation?

    The Prime Minister : I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman carried the House with him in the introductory part of his question. I acknowledge the difficulties that there have been for many people, not just hon. Members but throughout the country, as we have dealt with the effects of the recession. As the right hon. Gentleman will observe, that recession is not unique to this country. We are emerging from it when many others are still going into it. As we come out of the recession, perhaps I might quote the words of the chairman of Grand Met, Sir Allen Shepherd, who said :

    “Today, in British Industry we have almost everything that we’ve been asking for : low inflation, competitive exchange rates, higher productivity and good industrial relations. On top of that, the skills revolution’ is well under way and will add value to everything we do.”

    I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that and go out and encourage people across the country to take advantage of that position.

    Sir Edward Heath : Does my right hon. Friend recognise that until he and the Government give an absolutely clear and categorical assurance that no British forces, of any kind, will become involved in the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia, except for humanitarian reasons, any other suggestion will be suspect and will make it extremely difficult to persuade people to support the effort that we make? It will be suspect because it will be thought that we shall be dragged, stage by stage, into a European war or that we shall be pushed there by Washington. Both would be intolerable.

    The Prime Minister : As my right hon. Friend knows, we were among the first specifically to put troops into Bosnia to deal with humanitarian matters. We need to consider precisely how we can play a part both in seeking to end the terrible conflict that exists within Bosnia and in ensuring–for this is a clear-cut British strategic interest–that the conflict does not spread beyond Bosnia and lead to a realisation of the greater fear on which my right hon. Friend touched : a wider Balkan war. Those are issues of great complexity, which we need to discuss with our colleagues and friends in the United Nations and NATO.

    I take to heart my right hon. Friend’s remarks, as I know will every right hon. and hon. Member. This is an emerging and changing situation. We shall keep at the forefront of our minds the concern to keep British troops off the ground in Bosnia, but also the need for us to play a part, with our partners, diplomatically, in humanitarian aid, and in using political pressure to bring this dreadful conflict to a conclusion.

    Mr. Hoon : Is the Prime Minister at all embarrassed by the fact that last year some £7 million, or two thirds of the cost of his general election campaign, was received by the Conservative party from foreign sources?

    The Prime Minister : I have to say that that is just a touch rich coming from a member of a party whose entire shadow Cabinet is sponsored by trade unions. As Mr. Tom Sawyer of NUPE said, “It’s as crude as that no say, no pay.”

     

    Q3. Mr. Bates : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mr. Bates : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the gross domestic product figures produced on Monday clearly show that the recession is over and recovery well under way? Does he further agree that those same figures point to growth in the United Kingdom economy commencing in the middle of last year? Does that not further point to his leadership winning the essential battle against inflation and the equally essential battle against the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right that getting inflation down was the key. We were elected in the spring and the figures that we now have for growth in the second half of last year show that recovery began in the summer.

     

    Q4. Ms Coffey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Ms Coffey : Is the Prime Minister aware that Ferranti International, a company in my constituency, is awaiting the outcome of a bid for a high technology contract from the Saudi Arabian Government to which I understand he gave personal support in his talks with the Saudi Government earlier this year? Can he tell me what action he is taking to ensure that the contract is awarded to a major British industry to prevent the job losses that will surely follow if we do not get the contract?

    The Prime Minister : Defence Ministers are following the programme closely and doing all they can to progress it. The awarding of the contract in due course is a matter for the Saudi Government, but we are doing what we can to assist.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Ann Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mrs. Winterton : Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the British taxpayer should not be expected to pay towards the administration costs of the social charter throughout the EC, when the United Kingdom, quite rightly and properly, has opted out of all its provisions?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is well aware of and shares the Government’s view on the social chapter. The administrative costs of dealing with the social chapter are de minimis and in no sense a burden on the economy.

     

    Arms Exports (Iraq)

    Q6. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to instruct Government Departments to make full disclosure of all documents requested in connection with legal proceedings relating to unlawful export of arms to Iraq; and if he will make it his policy not to issue public immunity interest certificates in connection with any such proceedings.

    The Prime Minister : Government Departments will continue to disclose documents in any legal proceedings in the manner prescribed by law.

    Mr. Dalyell : If that is the answer, why is it that the Crown did not exercise its discretion, when Ministers knew perfectly well of his service to MI5 and MI6, in favour of Paul Grecian in the Ordtech trial?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House that it is quite inappropriate for me to comment when such cases are in the courts. He knows that it is inappropriate and I will not do so.

     

    Engagements

    Q8. Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mr. Pike : Will the Prime Minister rethink the Government’s approach to low pay and the abolition of the wages councils? Will he consider the information prepared by Lancashire county council which not only highlights the scandal of low pay but shows that in areas with no wages councils there is a much higher incidence of low pay, clearly identifying the dangers of their abolition?

    The Prime Minister : I am hardly likely to take any advice from Lancashire county council, given its record in recent years. The sheer scale of the increase in Lancashire’s council tax–I think from memory that it is an extra £84–as a result of the council’s maladministration is remarkable. Therefore, it is most unlikely that I shall take its advice upon that matter.

    On the general subject of wages councils, we have made it clear on a number of occasions in the past that their principal drawback is that they cost jobs to people who would otherwise be employed, and that is something which we care about, even if the hon. Gentleman does not.

  • Mr Major’s Pool Interview with the Media – 25 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s pool interview with the media, en route to London on Thursday 25th February 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, your trip to America I understand has ended on a good note for British jobs?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes it has, I think it is very good news. We have seen several pieces of good news recently, the move of Hoover to the United Kingdom I think is very good news, and of course Digital establishing themselves in a bigger way at Ayr, safeguarding 1,100 jobs and potentially providing several hundred more, I think that is very good news.

    QUESTION:

    Can you claim some personal credit for an initiative of your own, I notice you had Howard Davies over here to meet the executives from the administration.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Howard Davies and Michael Angus were over here but that is what you would expect us to do and I am delighted to work with British industry when we could. I spoke to the Managing Director of Digital but that was after they had made the decision.

    QUESTION:

    You were being questioned quite heavily earlier on today about the loss of jobs in Britain and you were making the point that you believe the conditions for recovery are there and there is evidence of that, what is that evidence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are several things. In terms of external investment into this country, well we just mentioned some of the evidence. If you look at what was happening last year, even in the depths of the recession, I know about the job losses and so does everyone else, but 400,000 new firms actually registered for business in the depth of the recession last year. That was the pattern we saw after the 1981 recession that produced a substantial amount of employment growth throughout the 1980s, so I think that is a very important factor. The fact that in terms of productivity improvement we now have the best productivity rates of anywhere in the European Community is another important factor, not a glamorous one which people will immediately fasten upon, but a critical one from the point of view of investors as for job growth.

    QUESTION:

    It is not just draining jobs from our supposed European partners?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not believe so. If you actually look not just at the levels of unemployment in this country but also at the levels of employment in this country you get rather a different perspective. Of all the European countries we have the second highest proportion of our adult population in secure jobs, only Denmark is ahead of us and most of the European nations are well behind us.

    QUESTION:

    You have the Budget coming up, we did have a significant shift in economic policy at the end of last year, do you believe that that now is the political basis or does a lot more work have to be done politically to change the conditions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Autumn Statement was there to help stimulate recovery and I think most people would say that it did. The package that the Chancellor put in hand to deal with repossessions was clearly very successful. We must now address the situation as it is and the Chancellor will do that in the Budget.

    QUESTION:

    I was surprised by the warmth of President Clinton when he met you yesterday, what do you think lay behind that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course although it was the first time President Clinton and I had met, we have had a number of very lengthy and detailed telephone conversations, so we were hardly strangers. We had addressed a series of problems together, we had examined them together and both of us had a very clear idea of what was in the other’s mind when we met. But underlying personal relationships there is the shared interests that the United States and the United Kingdom have, shared instincts but also shared interests in how we have free trade, how to lead to trade agreements, how we deal with Yugoslavia, Russia, Iraq. Those are areas where the United States would look instinctively to us, knowing that we would be likely to share their view, and where we would look instinctively to them for precisely the same reason.

    QUESTION:

    They were concerned perhaps that the campaign rhetoric had worried people in Europe and that we needed reassurance perhaps?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Campaigns are curious things on each side of the Atlantic and all the way around the world, one has to face the realities of governing and dealing with problems as they are, that is what governments are about and that is what they do. I think we will work very closely with this administration as we did with the last.

  • PMQT – 25 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th February 1993. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is on an official visit to the United States, which is clearly going extremely well.

    Mrs. Ewing : Will the Lord President of the Council accept that there has been a very warm welcome for the fact that the European Commission has designated the highlands and islands of Scotland as being eligible for objective 1 payments? This matter has been made all the more urgent by the fact that Ardersier is to be placed on a care and maintenance basis. Will the Lord President make it clear that the United Kingdom Government are to argue that the highlands and islands area to be covered by objective 1 should be the same as the highlands and islands enterprise area, which includes the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and parts of my constituency? In both cases the economy is very fragile, and we need this assistance.

    Mr. Newton : The whole House will join the hon. Lady in welcoming the announcement that the highlands and islands have been included in the list of recommendations that the Commission is making for designation under objective 1 in the next round of the structural fund. Of course, those recommendations are still subject to scrutiny and to final decision by the Council of Ministers. In the discussions, the United Kingdom will certainly seek to ensure that the needs and interests of west Grampian and of Argyll and Bute are taken fully into account as efforts are made to achieve the best outcome for the highlands and islands.

    Mr. Dykes : As my right hon. Friend has said, the Prime Minister’s visit to President Clinton and the new American Government has been extremely successful. Can he confirm that we are resisting the rather unfair attacks on the Airbus, the excellent British and European aircraft, and on its related equipment being made by American manufacturers, bearing in mind the fact that American subventions for aircraft are much higher than those in Europe?

    Mr. Newton : I am not in a position to give details of every aspect of my right hon. Friend’s conversations, but I have no doubt that he has emphasised the British Government’s view on those matters.

    Mrs. Beckett : How would the right hon. Gentleman feel if he were serving in the British Army, under fire in Bosnia, and were handed a P45?

    Mr. Newton : The need to achieve balanced and well-considered reductions in the armed forces was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Armed Forces some months ago. It is appropriate that that exercise should be carried through in a balanced and fair way. Of course, there is no question of anybody becoming redundant while in Bosnia.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is it not a further example of the Government’s incompetence that one week they are reprieving regiments because the British Army is overstretched and the next they are making soldiers redundant? Are they not gratuitously undermining the morale of British troops in one of the most dangerous theatres of operation?

    Mr. Newton : It seems to me that, against the background of a need acknowledged by all parties to make some reductions in the armed forces, it is right that it should be carried out fairly and even handedly. It would be much more unfair to leave troops serving in Bosnia in a state of continuing uncertainty when the position is being clarified elsewhere.

    Mrs. Beckett : Surely it is adding insult to injury to make soldiers redundant when the Government know perfectly well that there are no jobs for them to come back to. Is he aware that in some parts of the country, as many as 2,000 people are chasing every job?

    Mr. Newton : What I am aware of is that the armed forces have extensive arrangements for assisting those whose services come under the heading that we are discussing and that the great majority of those who left in the previous phase of change in the armed forces have found jobs, and their skills enhanced their prospects of doing so.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will my right hon. Friend commend the action of the judge at Lancaster Crown court who imposed on four youths who were guilty of affray and other crimes–one of whom was on bail–an immediate custodial sentence, which will teach a salutary lesson to other gangs who choose to maraud?

    Mr. Newton : Without being familiar with every detail of the particular case, I endorse the general thrust of my hon. Friend’s remarks. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have her support and, I hope, that of the House when he issues further proposals shortly in respect of juvenile offenders and of those offending while on bail.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Leader of the House recall the Prime Minister’s commitment that under the citizens charter the public would be compensated when the authorities failed? Is he aware of today’s Treasury Committee report which concludes that the Bank of England has manifestly failed in its duty of supervision in the case of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Will the sufferers be compensated, or is this to be another example of “do as I say but not as I do”?

    Mr. Newton : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already carefully considered the implications of the Bingham report and made it clear that the Government do not believe that it would be right to offer compensation beyond that provided in general banking legislation under the statutory deposit protection scheme. Of course, my right hon. Friend and the Government as a whole will carefully study the report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I certainly do not expect them to change their conclusion.

    Mr. Richards : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s trade union reforms have completely transformed the industrial relations climate, and will he join me in welcoming to our policies the Johnny-come-latelys on the Opposition Benches no matter how belated their conversion?

    Mr. Newton : Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend and endorse what he says. The Opposition have opposed every significant piece of reform legislation that we have passed since 1979 in that connection, but have had to come to a grudging acceptance of them as their beneficial results become clear. We have a continuing flow of examples of investment coming into this country which has been helped in coming here by precisely those reforms.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Bennett : I have here a few reports covering the past 14 years of Home Office Ministers assuring us that they would get tough on crime. Can the Leader of the House tell us how many promises were made and why they have not worked? Could it possibly be because of the sort of society that this Government have created, in which people have been encouraged to be selfish and to put self-interest first ; a society in which no one is expected to understand right or wrong, but merely whether one can get away with it, and in which Ministers are trained to say, “Not me, guv”?

    Mr. Newton : I would take that more easily from somebody who was not a representative of a party which has voted against or sought to weaken every substantial measure designed to tackle the problem : the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and, regularly, the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The test of the hon. Gentleman’s commitment will be how he votes when the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act comes again before the House shortly.

    Mr. Waterson : Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people in my constituency of Eastbourne and throughout the country stand to benefit from the Housing and Urban Development Bill? Is it not a great pity that Opposition Members voted against it on Second and Third Readings?

    Mr. Newton : Yes it is, and it is typical of the way in which the Opposition so often fail to vote in the way that much of their rhetoric indicates that they should.

     

    Q3. Ms. Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Ms. Eagle : Does the Lord President of the Council agree with the views expressed yesterday by his colleague, Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that Britain’s withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism was a humiliation which could have been avoided if Britain had cut interest rates earlier and realigned earlier? Does he agree with me that Lord Lawson’s comments are hardly a ringing endorsement of his Government’s economic competence?

    Mr. Newton : No, I do not entirely share the views that my right hon. and noble Friend is reported to have expressed. I would have found it more credible coming from the hon. Lady if she had joined the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in referring to something that her constituents will benefit from–the inclusion of Merseyside in objective 1 status.

     

    Q4. Mr. Willetts : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Willetts : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the battle against over-regulation must be one of the Government’s highest priorities? Is it not absurd that health and safety regulations prohibit one of our leading physicists, who has written the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” entry on electricity, from changing a 13 amp plug in his own laboratory?

    Mr. Newton : It certainly sounds so on the face of it, but I had better undertake to look into the particular case, while agreeing entirely with my hon. Friend’s basic proposition, which is that we need precisely what is now being carried out by the Government–a thorough-going review of some aspects of over-regulation.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hoon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hoon : Since the Leader of the House is keen on talking about European Community funding, can he explain to Britain’s depressed regions why not one penny of the £1 billion that is available to this country from the EC in regional funding had been spent at the end of last year? Will he assure the House that all that £1 billion will be spent, together with the £2.5 billion matching funds that will be required in the next 10 months, and ensure that the money is spent in Britain on helping our depressed regions rather than being lost to other countries?

    Mr. Newton : The Government fully comply with the Community’s rules in these matters and have every intention of making that even clearer than, evidently, it is to the hon. Gentleman.

     

    Q6. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Evennett : Has my right hon. Friend observed that on average council tax in Labour authorities will be £100 higher than in Conservative authorities and will he pass that information on to the Prime Minister when he returns from his successful trip to the United States? Furthermore, does my right hon. Friend agree that Conservative councils are efficient and effective, while Labour councils just cost the people more?

    Mr. Newton : Yes, I have noticed such reports. There is a remarkable correlation between high levels of council tax and Labour control, and between low levels of council tax and Conservative control. If there is any risk of that lesson being missed, we shall ensure that the electorate are made aware of it between now and the local elections in May.

    Mr. Home Robertson : May I take the Leader of the House back to the question of the redundant soldiers? What does he say to Royal Scots serving in Northern Ireland, and members of the Cheshire Regiment serving in Bosnia, whom I met last week, who applied for voluntary redundancy on the understanding that their regiments were to be amalgamated and who would now like to have the opportunity to withdraw their redundancy applications? It is not good enough to say that they have the right to appeal. Under the new circumstances, they should have the right to stay in the Army and should not be issued with P45s.

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces tells me that that matter was the subject of exchanges in yesterday’s debate and that he made the position clear to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) then. I am certainly not going to add to that now.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Bill Clinton – 24 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Bill Clinton, held in Washington on Wednesday 24th February 1993.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I want to formally welcome Prime Minister Major to the White House of the United States, we are delighted to have him here. As I am sure you know, he has already met earlier today with people on the Hill and with members of my Cabinet. We have just finished the first of two meetings, we talked for about an hour and then this evening we will have a working dinner.

    About the conversations we have had so far, I would just like to make two points: first we covered a wide range of topics, we talked about Bosnia, as you might imagine we would, we talked about the Middle East. And then the rest of our time was spent virtually exclusively talking about economic matters, about the upcoming meeting of the G7, about the importance of trying to get an agreement under GATT and my commitment to that, about the absolute necessity of the United States, Europe and Japan working together during this difficult time to try and prevent a contraction of the global economy and instead hopefully to promote growth not only here at home but throughout the world. And we talked about that in some considerable detail.

    The Prime Minister, as you know, has been in office a lot longer than I have and I asked him for his advice about a number of things and his opinion about others and we had a very very good meeting and I am looking forward to our dinner tonight.

    The second point I would like to make is to reaffirm something that some of you asked me during the photo op, and that is whether the United States will continue to have a very special relationship with Great Britain. The answer to that, from my point of view, is an unqualified ‘Yes’. I think that only two Presidents ever lived in England, I think I am one of only two, there may have been more somewhere in past centuries, but it is a very important relationship to me and I think it is off to a very good start. And I would like to say again how much I appreciate the candour with which the Prime Minister has approached the issues on which we discussed our mutual interests.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, firstly thank you for your welcome today and I have found out meeting extremely useful and I look forward to continuing this evening. And I certainly had some very useful meetings this morning on the Hill and with other members of your Cabinet earlier this morning, with Lloyd Bentsen and of course over lunch as well with some of your colleagues. It is nice, having had a number of telephone conversations over the last few months, to actually see a face across the table rather than just hear a voice across the ‘phone and I look forward to continuing that dialogue this evening.

    You set out some of the things that we were able to discuss over the last hour or so. I was particularly pleased we were able to reach such a meeting of minds on the importance of reaching an agreement to the Uruguay Round as speedily as possible. I think we share the view that for a raft of reasons it is important to get a satisfactory and fair agreement to the GATT Round, not just because of the impetus that will give to trade growth and hopefully to prosperity and job growth as well, but also because of the very remarkable advantage that will give not just to the industrialised but to the non-industrialised world with the many difficulties that are faced economically at the moment. So I was particularly pleased at our meeting of minds on that particular subject.

    We found also a complete agreement about the need for the Security Council resolutions that have been imposed in respect of Iraq to be fully met and to be fully honoured in the future. I had the pleasure of being able to welcome the President’s initiative in humanitarian air drops in Bosnia. The United Kingdom have got a number of thousands of troops actually delivering humanitarian aid in central Bosnia, they have been doing that for some time. I think as a result of their activities many people who otherwise might not have lived through this winter have done and I think this new initiative by the President is thoroughly welcome.

    So it has been a very worthwhile and a very enjoyable meeting thus far and I look forward to continuing it this evening.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Let me answer that first question. If the United States can in some way make a constructive contribution to a political settlement, of course we would be interested in doing that, but that is not a subject we have discussed in any way so far and I think I would rather wait to make further comments until after we have had a chance to discuss it.

    As far as the campaign is concerned, the campaign is over, you are a good one to answer that question since you know that compared to previous campaigns I have been in this was just sort of another day at the office and once you achieve the responsibilities of office, this is what you have to do. I told the Prime Minister today that I was just grateful that I got through this whole campaign with most of my time in England still classified.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Let me deal with the air drops first. General Powell came over here last weekend and we talked for a very extended period of time about this operation and about how we can maximise the safety to United States’ pilots and other personnel on the planes who would be involved in this and to minimise the prospect that any humanitarian relief operation could be drawn into the politics and the military operations of this area. We know that if we are high enough to virtually assure the complete safety of the people who will participate in the airlift that a percentage of the packages we drop will be outside the more or less half mile circle that we will be trying to hit. We also know that if we leaflet the area in advance, if we notify the people about what we are dropping and how to use the medicine and what kind of food will be there, to whatever extent the people need it they will be on the look-out for it and if they have to walk a mile instead of half a mile for it, we think they will. So we believe that (a) there is a need in some of the remote areas and (b) we can do this with quite an effective but safe mission.

    Insofar as other actions, I think there are a number of things that we are looking at. I am encouraged by the United Nations’ interest in the war crimes issue, I am encouraged by the conversation the Prime Minister and I had about the importance of trying to make the sanctions that are now in force actively be more effective. But I would remind you that our policy is that we want to try and have a good faith in negotiations with all the parties there, we are committed to doing what we can to encourage the Bosnians to engage in negotiations within the Vance/Owen framework and President Yeltsin has been very forthcoming on his part in trying to help get the negotiations back on track too.

    So I think we should look at it just from that point of view. It would be a great mistake to read this humanitarian relief operation as some initial foray towards a wider military role.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just add something to that, as you requested? We are able at the moment to deliver a substantial amount of aid in central Bosnia by land but the natural terrain of Bosnia as a whole means that is not practicable for a raft of reasons, not least geographical reasons, at the moment in all parts of Bosnia. I think therefore you do have to look at imaginative ways of actually getting food aid and medicine aid through and I think the prospect that the President is exploring is an imaginative one and I hope it will prove successful. On sanctions, one of the things we have been discussing in the last half an hour or so is the prospects of enhanced sanctions and I think there clearly are opportunities there that we will need to examine. I think we can improve the sanctions over the Danube, for example, I do not think they are being enforced very effectively.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think President Yeltsin is weakened by his present conflict to the extent that he is not going to continue, clearly there are difficulties in the disputes he has had with Congress and in particular the Speaker, but I expect President Yeltsin to be there and to continue, I think he is the best hope for the Russians and I think the policies and the movements towards reform that he has in mind and continues to have in mind are the right ways forward. I think there are two things we can do to help Russia in general and President Yeltsin, one is the economic assistance that has been provided, and there is a great deal of discussion to be had about whether we are directing that in the right way and in the right volume, and secondly I think also there are the political messages of support to the reformers and to the reform policies, personified at the moment in the person of President Yeltsin but the underlying purpose of the assistance is to assist the reformers and to assist the reform policies in Russia. I think we ought to give them political support as well as the practical and economic support that we have been giving them.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I believe that President Yeltsin has not been paralysed by what has happened, I support him and his role and he is trying to do. I have not established a definite date for a meeting with him yet but I do hope to meet with him soon, personally. I know he is having some trouble with his Congress but that is part of being in a democratic society with an elected President [indistinct] what it is like in our system. I do not want to minimise that but I think it is a grave error to assume that he cannot continue and do well, I believe he can. And I think that in terms of what we ought to be doing about it, I think the Prime Minister has pretty well laid out the kind of political and economic support we ought to be giving but let me say that as all of you know, I have placed a great priority on this. The State Department will now have an Ambassador at large whose job it is to coordinate a response not only to Russia but to all the republics of the former Soviet Union and we have a very distinguished American, Thomas Pickering, nominated to be our Ambassador. We have put in a lot of effort into trying to support democracy and trying to support economic recovery there.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We are going to ask for an extension of fast track authority and we are going to put a real effort into a successful conclusion of the Round. I advocated that in 1991 at the beginning of my race for President and I still feel very strongly that it is important.

    The press response around the world to the economic plan I presented to Congress has been very positive because our trading partners have been asking us for years to make a real effort to reduce the debt and so we are doing that. I think that sparks hope not only here at home but around the world and I think if we were to successfully conclude the Uruguay Round that would also spark hope that we will be expanding trade on terms that are fair to everyone so I am very hopeful that we can get a trade agreement.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We haven’t discussed Northern Ireland at all and after we do I’ll be happy to answers your questions.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    All I can tell you is General Powell has been asked to design the mission in such a way that we would minimise risk to our folks and we have obviously engaged in an extensive consultation, which is not over, [inaudible] has been asking me every day when I was going to make this announcement. The consultations aren’t over and one of the things that we want everybody to know is that this is a humanitarian mission and we are prepared to help anybody who needs the food and medicine and we want the broadest possible support for this and we want all the people on the ground and the various factions to know that this is not a political issue with us.

    We are very encouraged by the responses we have gotten so far from all the elements with whom we have discussed this plan. That is all I can tell you.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is a great deal to add. As I indicated earlier, there is a twin-track approach. We are providing aid by land, the President has in mind aid delivered by air to areas we can’t reach by land. I have no reason to suppose that that is going to put at risk the lives of the British soldiers in Central Bosnia.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but regarding fighter capability].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You asked the question. I have given the judgement I make.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We talked about the importance of adhering to the United Nations Resolution as they apply to Iraq in the aftermath of the Gulf War and about our general support for the peace process continuing. We didn’t deal with that issue and I think I ought to wait until the Secretary of State returns from his mission before I discuss it further.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but regarding consultations on Bosnia and any other countries becoming involved other than the US].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Yes, we might have some other countries involved. The Prime Minister has made his statement. I think he has done his part. His troops are on the ground there but I think there is a chance that we will have support from other nations.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    No.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a matter that has to be negotiated between the parties and I don’t think I’m going to express a view on whether that is the right map. I think the process of seeking a negotiated settlement and trying to reach by agreement between the three parties an agreement on the map that will enable a political settlement to be reached is the right way but I don’t think it is for me to judge whether the map is right. Clearly, the view of the participants at the moment is that the map isn’t right but that is the purpose of negotiations; that is why I was delighted to hear this morning that Karadzic and Izetbegovic will be joining talks again with Boban so that they can actually talk to Cy Vance and David Owen and see if they can reach an agreement.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    The only thing I would say just to add to that is that I agree with what the Prime Minister has said. As you know, the United States feels very strongly that this agreement must be just that – an agreement; it must not be shoved down the throat of the Bosnians or anyone else if it is going to work.

    We also feel strongly that all the parties should negotiate in good faith and therefore I agree with what he said about the map but I would make this further point: the United States has made clear in our statement of policy that if an agreement is reached in good faith we would be prepared to be part of a NATO or a United Nations effort to monitor or support the agreement and that map would be difficult to support I think but before we make any final judgements we need to give the parties a chance to reach their accord.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    What I said was that I have invited the members of the Congress to present them to me and instructed our people to continue to look for them and I presume as we define things that we are willing to put on the table we will continue to do it. We don’t have any orchestrated theory about how to do that now but I’d be surprised if there aren’t some more comments.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is an agreement over the degree of subsidies for projects like Airbus and that agreement continues until July and I think there is no proposition in what the President said to change that particular agreement.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, you said you may discuss Northern Ireland this evening. Would you expect to discuss both the peace envoy issue and the human rights issue and do you share the view expressed by some members of Congress that Senator [indistinct] suggested that there are abuses of human rights in Northern Ireland that need to be addressed and perhaps the Prime Minister would like to [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will address that point first. The real abuse of human rights in Northern Ireland is the abuse of human rights of people who find bombs in shopping malls when they are going about their ordinary everyday business. I think that is the abuse of human rights that is overwhelmingly the concern of everybody in Northern Ireland on both sides of the sectarian divide.

    Over the past two or three years, the British Government with the Taoiseach and the political parties in Northern Ireland have been engaged in talks to try and find a political settlement to a problem that has existed in Northern Ireland for generations. We are seeking that agreement. Those talks I believe it is fair to say have made more progress than most people believed was possible. The talks came to a halt with the general election in the Republic of Ireland and the forthcoming local elections in Northern Ireland but it is the policy of my Government to resume those talks with all the parties in Northern Ireland to try and reach a satisfactory political settlement and remove many of the disputes and hatreds that have existed for generations. Those disputes and hatreds are worsened by violence, whether it is the IRA violence or whether it is the response to IRA violence which has also been prevalent over the last year or so. I condemn both unreservedly and without any distinction.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I believe that obviously there has to be a political solution there or there will be no solution at all and that the human rights issues will have to be addressed in that context. Whether the United States can play any sort of constructive role is something that we want to discuss later this evening.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I think you have to expect that there would be some trouble and the Senate Minority Leader can say that but he was here during the last twelve years when other Presidents and the Congress quadrupled the national debt. I am trying to do something about it, turn it around and go in the opposite direction. The survey showed that a big majority of the American people support my initiative. The response from people in governments around the world has been almost uniformly positive that American is trying to change the nature of its economic policy, reduce its debt, increase investment in high-growth items and I never expected this to be easy. This is a fundamental change; I don’t expect it to be easy but I hope that I will be working with Senator Dole and with others to bring it to a successful conclusion.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Yes, I spoke to the Prime Minister of Canada. We had a very nice conversation which was mostly personal and I thanked him for his kindness to me and he assured me that his country would continue to work with me and that he would personally until his tenure in office was over. I wish him well. He seemed to be a person who had worked through this and was very much at peace with himself today.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just answer that point as well. I regard Brian as an old friend and a good friend. I shall miss him. He has been a very good friend of the United Kingdom and a very good friend of the Commonwealth so I am sad to hear of his decision today but it must be his decision. I wish him well in the future and I look forward to seeing him in the United Kingdom in a few weeks time.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think from time to time distinguished visitors from the United States in Northern Ireland have come back to the United States and they have actually explained the remarkable changes that have taken place in Belfast. There was a delegation that was there recently and the reality is that anyone who knew the place ten years ago and knows the place today will see there is an absolute and total sea change and I think there is a greater knowledge about the will for peace amongst people in Northern Ireland, especially the ordinary people of Northern Ireland on both sides of the sectarian divide. The more that is understood the better and what is actually needed in Northern Ireland to help speed that is more understanding of the process, more support for the talks, more investment for job creation and less money to fund terrorism and the more people know about that, the nearer we come to a solution.

  • Mr Major’s Pool Interview with the Media – 23 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s pool interview with the media, en route to Washington on Tuesday 23rd February 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, I get the sense that on this trip you have got more to talk about and you are going to have a more crowded agenda than for very many meetings between President and Prime Minister for some time past?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is probably right, it is certainly going to be a very crowded agenda. It falls, I think, into two quite clear cut parts, firstly economic/trade matters, the need to get the GATT Round settled, and political matters, the problems in Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq. There will certainly be plenty to talk about.

    QUESTION:

    But I also sense that there are real differences between you which could cause trouble. Just take two: the whole business over Airbus, Ireland for example, little things which may be a real irritant between the two of you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think there are going to be matters that we cannot solve readily. There are certainly a whole range of things that we will want to discuss but the predominant matters are of course the trade matters, I think that will be in the centre of our minds.

    QUESTION:

    But have you not got more work to do with an incoming President like this, some of whose views do not seem to be quite what yours are?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I think you make a misjudgement when you say that. There is one thing that is absolutely clear, both the United States and the United Kingdom have a common outlook on a vast range of international problems. Most centrally of course we are both anxious to get the world economies moving again, we both know that that needs a satisfactory GATT agreement. We are both determined in international affairs, for example, to do what we can to contribute to helping Russia deal with its enormous problems, vital for the whole of Europe and the rest of the world that we do so. We are both keen to see a solution to the problems in Yugoslavia. We are both absolutely determined to make sure that Iraq obeys the Security Council resolutions. So the points that we have to discuss that you say are points of difference are tiny compared to the points where we wish to move the agenda forward from a mutual area of agreement.

    QUESTION:

    I know it is a hackneyed phrase – the special relationship – but I do get the sense that there needs to be a bit of rebuilding of that special relationship at the moment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The special relationship is not a term, frankly, that I use. There are huge areas of common interest between the United States and the United Kingdom, that has been so for many years and will continue to be so in the future. It is partly the instinct of a long-standing blood relationship but more important it is the fact that we have the common outlook on how to deal with many of the problems that exist, that has been so with administrations over many years, it is so now, and in my judgement it will remain so in the future.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think it is important that you are the first European leader to go to see him?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have spoken on the telephone on a number of occasions already so we have a pretty clear idea of what our views are on a whole range of subjects. I am looking forward to seeing him, I very much hope that the other European leaders will see him very shortly.

  • PMQT – 23 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Dr. Kim Howells : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

    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 meetings with ministerial colleagues and others later today.

    Dr. Howells : Does the Prime Minister agree that it is one thing to blame the chairman of the Conservative party for having sent advisers to try to help undermine the Democrats’ presidential campaign, but that it is quite another for him to try to dodge the blame for illegal searches of Home Office files? Does he accept the blame for those illegal searches, and if he does not will he institute an investigation to find out who conducted them so that he can sack them?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is characteristically wrong on both points. Let me set out the facts for him. No one was sent by the Conservative party to take part in last year’s presidential election campaign. Two members of staff were invited privately by people in the Republican party. Their fares were paid by people in the Republican party ; they travelled in their own time ; and they paid their own personal expenses. Their expenses were not paid by the Conservative party. In contrast, the Labour party sent people, including its deputy leader, to the Democrat headquarters. It is not the least of the tributes to President Clinton that he won the election despite Europe’s most frequent losers giving him advice. The Home Office’s press office received inquiries in early October about whether Mr. Clinton had applied for British citizenship. Inquirers were told that, in accordance with normal practice, details about individual applications could not be disclosed to third parties. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now accept that that is the fact of the matter.

    Sir Terence Higgins : As, unlike the previous Labour Government, this Government are not obliged to do what the IMF tells them, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity in Washington to explain to the IMF that the economic recovery is still fragile, that the size of the public sector borrowing requirement is still due to a large extent to the recession and that an increase in taxation at this stage in the economic cycle would stultify growth and be likely to increase rather than diminish the size of the fiscal deficit?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend, as a former distinguished Treasury Minister, will expect me at this stage of the economic cycle to take note of his comments rather than to respond in detail to them.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister appreciate the full significance of the latest figures showing 1 million long-term unemployed? Is it not appalling that 20 per cent. of the long-term unemployed in this country are aged between 18 and 24, many of whom have never had a chance to work?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the number of long-term unemployed is too high– higher than anyone would wish to see. That is why we are seeking to reduce it. That is why we have put in place the most varied comprehensive programme ever to help people who have been unemployed for six months or more. Next year there will be more than 1,200,000 places on a number of schemes to help the long-term unemployed, including training for work, job clubs, business start-ups and restart courses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering how we might further help the long-term unemployed. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be prepared to match his words with action and support any proposals that we may have.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it remotely satisfactory that a problem has to reach crisis proportions before it gets on the Government’s agenda? Is it not the case that, whatever the Government say or have been doing, unemployment goes up every month? Indeed, it has gone up every single month since the Prime Minister took office. I will give him one simple and practical suggestion. Why does he not let local authorities spend their own money which they have got from asset sales to build homes and put people back to work? He could do it tomorrow. Why does he not do it?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls the autumn statement, he will know that my right hon. Friend increased the amount of local authority assets that could be used and that local authorities underspend the amount that they are permitted to use. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so sure that it is this Government’s policies that cause unemployment, how can he explain the fact that unemployment is rising right across Europe and the world and that Governments of all complexions, including socialist Governments in France and Spain, face similar problems? If there is an easy answer, why is it that those socialist Governments and others have failed to find it?

    Mr. John Smith : Why is it that the Prime Minister fails to understand the deep concerns in this country? Is he aware that, in the context of high and rising unemployment and high and rising crime, it was reported yesterday in The Daily Telegraph that only 10 per cent. of the people of this country felt that we were a nation at ease with ourselves? Since the Prime Minister is so good at blaming everyone else, who does he blame for that sad state of affairs?

    The Prime Minister : I say categorically to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not fail to understand the problem of unemployment; I understand it very well. That is precisely why, over the last two years, we have put in place extra schemes–training for work, job clubs, job interview guarantees, business start-ups, workshops and restart courses–all to help people who are unemployed to get back into work. While the right hon. and learned Gentleman admits abroad that it is a worldwide problem, he does not have the courage to admit that here. He comes here with only sound bite politics rather than any constructive help.

    Mr. Ashby : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the way to improve the unemployment situation is to improve manufacturing industry, not, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, by allowing local authorities to spend their capital? Does my right hon. Friend accept, further, that in real manufacturing industry–the engineering industry–there are real signs of improvement and activity and that there is increased employment? Will my right hon. Friend see that that improvement continues by ensuring that we do not have increased taxation, that interest rates are kept low and that there is more capital investment and not so much tax on it?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend sets out a number of important points. Quite apart from the present inflation position and level of interest rates, there are a number of other signs that bode well for our competitiveness and for job creation in the future. United Kingdom unit costs are now growing more slowly than those in Japan and Germany. Earnings are growing more slowly than for 25 years, making us more competitive. Export volumes were at record levels at the end of last year. Our share of world trade has stabilised after decades of decline. Productivity is at all -time high levels. Those are the essential ingredients for growing prosperity and secure jobs in the future, and those are what we are seeking to provide.

     

    Q2. Mr. Fraser : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

    Mr. Fraser : Is not the Prime Minister appalled by the fact that when the Conservatives took office in 1979, unemployment was just over 1 million and that now the number of people unemployed for more than 12 months is over 1 million? May I suggest that, as he crosses the Atlantic this afternoon, he dips into “Bonfire of the Vanities” and contemplates the extent to which economic trends in this country are beginning to replicate the horrors of cities in the United States, and perhaps he could resolve to give up making excuses during Lent?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman might do well to reflect on the levels of unemployment throughout the Community, now at 17 million. He might show his concern better if he and his party did not oppose every job training scheme that we produce. While he invites me to look into “Bonfire of the Vanities”, he might look into affairs in his borough, where there is the highest poll tax in Britain, the largest number of uncollected rents, the largest number of empty properties and where he and his party have brought despair year after year after year.

    Mr. Gallie : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the actions of French fishermen today in destroying £10,000 worth of fish en route from Ayr to Germany? Does he recall similar incidents last year, when £30,000 of produce was lost in a similar manner? May we have an assurance that he will approach the French Government to make sure that the culprits are brought to justice and that compensation is paid to all in Britain who lose out in such circumstances?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes the point. Officials have already lodged protests with the French authorities about the incidents in Roscoff during the weekend. We shall continue to leave the French Government in no doubt that we expect them to act where necessary to safeguard free trade, to pay compensation when losses have occurred and to bring the perpetrators to book. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

     

    Q3. Mr. Enright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

    Mr. Enright : If a principal duty of a Government is the prevention of crime, have not the present Government failed spectacularly? Should not the Prime Minister immediately announce the establishment of a royal commission to make urgent proposals on the subject? Or will he just watch the downward spiral continue with the gaze of the dog that does not understand?

    The Prime Minister : As I arrived today, the Under-Secretary of State for Health was setting out a list of measures designed to deal with crime that the Opposition had opposed. To illustrate its depth of concern about the matter, the Labour party had 155 words on the subject of crime in its election manifesto. By contrast, since 1979 we have increased the maximum penalty for trafficking in hard drugs to life imprisonment ; introduced a power to confiscate drug traffickers’ and other criminals’ assets, against the opposition of the Labour party ; increased maximum penalties for carrying firearms to life imprisonment, for cruelty to children to 10 years and for insider dealing to seven years. I will take Opposition Members seriously on matters of crime when they support, for example, the prevention of terrorism Acts, and we shall give them an opportunity to do that within a few days.

    Mr. Luff : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the plans by Jaguar Cars to invest £500 million in the production of a new car at Coventry and of the increases in production planned by Rover Cars, including the excellent Land-Rover Discovery car, which many hon. Members are proud to drive? Does he agree that that is excellent news for the west midlands and the whole British motor vehicle industry?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend and I am–of course –aware of the large investments by Jaguar and Rover. Not only is that excellent news for the motor industry and the west midlands, but it demonstrates the continuing commitment to the United Kingdom as a key manufacturing base by Jaguar’s parent company, Ford. The British motor industry was a relic of an industry 15 years ago. It is now profitable, expanding and exporting as a result of our policies.

     

    Q4. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 February.

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

    Mr. Beith : Why does the Prime Minister think that the long list of measures that he has just read out, and which his Government have successfully carried through the House to deal with crime and juvenile crime, has simply not worked? Could it be that crime has become too easy, that violence has become too much the theme of television and videos, that respect for other people has gone too much out of fashion and that too many young people see no stake for themselves in society but see more of a future in crime and the black economy? Does the Prime Minister not have to reach out beyond any one party in order to tackle such issues?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say a moment ago, and I addressed a good deal of that in a speech a fortnight or so ago. There is a responsibility that spreads far beyond any Government. It most explicitly includes a responsibility within the family circle. It most expressly includes the churches and it most expressly includes the schools to ensure that there is no truancy. Those children who truant are far more likely to be involved in juvenile crime. It is for those reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing measures to deal with juvenile crime very shortly.