The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: European Community

Mr Major’s Speech at Leeds Chamber of Commerce – 28 January 1994

Below is Mr Major’s speech held at Leeds Chamber of Commerce on Friday 28th January 1994.

PRIME MINISTER:

When I sat down here at this top table this evening, I learned the moment I heard that remarkable Grace that this was going to be a special evening, a very classy evening, something perhaps just a touch out of the ordinary so I listened to what the Rector had to say and in the midst of that excellent dinner I thought I might reply for a moment in kind so let me have a crack at doing exactly that:

The Rector spoke tonight in rhyme and captivated us all the time; It even made me forget that he in times past once worked for the BBC. [Laughter and applause]

That made him feel distinctly odd but thankfully drove him back to God!

So I thought I’d follow his lead and say my message in the very same way:

My call tonight is clear and bright: “Don’t worry boys, the country’s all right!

Interest rates down and inflation low, exports up and we’re ready to go.

Things are better and they won’t get worse, we can even accept the Grace in verse! [Applause]

So Rector, into the pulpit and say: “God Bless Britain, we’re on our way!” [Applause]

You can go home now! That’s it! We may say it more elegantly, perhaps in better grammar, perhaps in a bit more detail but that’s it so those who wish to leave may decently do so and no offence will be taken!

It is always a great pleasure to escape from that chattering circle around Westminster and find out what is happening in the real world (Hear! Hear!) – I see you have been there! [Laughter] – How wise of you to come back!

I have had a most enjoyable and interesting day in the area and I’m delighted to be here this evening and to see, if I may say so, so many of my friends from the House of Commons on both sides of the House here this evening and I am delighted to see them all here.

Your President mentioned David Curry, the new Minister for Leeds. I would simply single him out for this reason if I may: in Leeds centenary year what we have is one of our youngest and best Ministers to look after your interests at Westminster and I have not a shred of doubt he will discharge that responsibility admirably. [Applause]

Over the years, like many people who were born down south, I have observed the changing face of the north but I am in no sense the only person to have done that. Consider, for example, the observations of an Italian journalist back here in Britain after ten years’ absence abroad and what did he find? He found here a Britain transformed for the better but with one big failing, a failing touched upon by your President. This is what he said:

“The British seem unable to appreciate any of the achievements of modern Britain. Not once was I told how good British theatre or the BBC World Service still are or how impressive Marks and Spencers and British Airways have become. There are many examples of the British failing to appreciate what they do well and concentrating instead upon what they do badly. The British have managed to turn grumbling into an art form and are kilometres ahead in it than anyone else.”

But this wise Italian had one shining exception. He went on:

“The north of England has stopped moaning, has rolled up its sleeves, displaying some of the grit and determination which astonished the world 150 years ago.”

Mr. President, I agree with that and today in this area I saw some of that grit and determination and I have not a shred of doubt about your future in this part of the country.

But if an Italian can stand back and look at our country, so can we. It is our country, so let us for a few moments do that this evening and take a clear-eyed look at ourselves, focus on what we do best and then build on what we do best.

My overriding priorities for 1994 are the economy, education and building a safer and more ordered society. These, Mr. President, are the basics and tonight I will concentrate on the first two.

First, the economy. Getting back to the most basic basics of all, lower borrowing, lower unemployment, low inflation and more growth. As you so rightly said, Mr. President, we have to break the inflationary psychology which has so bedevilled our prospects in this country for so long and everyone must understand that competitiveness is the route of our future prosperity, that unless we in this country are the best others will take our markets and steal our profits and as a nation we must steel ourselves to do whatever it takes to win in those international markets.

The underlying message is very simple. If business succeeds, Britain succeeds; if business fails, we will drift on but not with the same prosperity, not with the same enthusiasm, not with the same belief in ourselves and not with the same political clout in the world and above all the route to future success lies with low inflation. I have always believed that. If you have ever been in a position where you can’t pay the bills at the end of the week, then you feel strongly about inflation and that is why on the very first day I became Chancellor of the Exchequer I was determined to take action that would break the inflation habit for good.

There is in this country what I personally believe is a cynical view, a cynical view that a little bit of inflation is good for you, people feel better, wages go up, benefits rise more, asset values go up and people have a little bit more money but if that little bit of inflation is higher than your competitors it isn’t good for you and if you are poor or on a fixed income it is deadly for you; like a drug, it makes you feel better for a while but then you need bigger and bigger doses and soon you are hooked on a very nasty addiction indeed.

Curing that addiction has been very painful. I understand that perhaps as well as anyone in this room, perhaps as well as anyone in this country. During the recession, many businesses and many individuals have been hurt but we are coming through that and a very different prospect lies immediately before us.

Inflation over the past year has been 2% or less. No-one under the age of 40 can remember when that was last the case and what is more, while it may rise a little over the months ahead, low inflation is here to stay and what does that mean? It means industry can now invest with confidence but if we, if you, the business people who make the wealth to raise the taxes to support this services of this country, if you are to benefit from low inflation we must also break the habit of paying ourselves more than we should. We have no business any of us – public sector, private sector, it makes no difference – to demand pay increases year after year regardless of productivity, regardless of the market and regardless of the competition.

You in the private sector are keeping your labour costs down while so many of your competitors are seeing them rise. In the public sector too we are keeping tight control of our running costs. We are insisting that any pay increases must be financed out of increased productivity and efficiency. That doesn’t mean no pay increases for public servants; it does mean that the Government will only pay what can properly be afforded.

Everyone in this country without exception wants the benefit of low inflation but no-one wants the costs of getting there. Getting to low inflation and keeping low inflation is the very stuff of political unpopularity but it is necessary. I can only say to you that no prime minister – certainly not me – is paid to be popular and just right now, Mr. President, that is probably rather a good thing, if I may make the point!

I will tell you what I believe about that. I believe it is right to take the tough decisions today that will make everyone better off tomorrow. To bring Government borrowing down, we have had to put some taxes up. I would very much have preferred not to have had to do that but it was necessary because sound finances are the only basis for sustained economic growth. Spending must be paid for, it can’t just go on unless one is prepared to meet that discipline and that is also why we have taken some tough decisions on public spending.

Public spending means either more borrowing or higher taxes or both. We intend to cut borrowing and I do not wish to see higher taxes so I propose to take no nonsense on taxes from politicians who have been handing out promises of extra spending on every street corner. Those promises could easily be made but if those promises are to be kept, they would have to be met by the taxpayer and I remember only too well when the taxman took 98 pence in the pound from savings income, 83 pence in the pound from earnings; remember when corporation tax was 52% and I just have to say this to this audience: tax rates like that cause acute damage to the economy and I believe we must never go back to them. [Applause] It is low direct tax rates that have made Britain a magnet for investment, for enterprise and for skill and that is why other companies are now moving from continental Europe and elsewhere to set up business here in the United Kingdom: low inflation, sound public finance. These policies are right, right for Britain and right for our future prosperity.

Mr. President, lift your eyes from the everyday headlines that you see, stand back a little and just look at the circumstances that really apply in this country at the present time. Do that with a clear and an uncluttered eye and what do you see?

You see, I believe, above all else that we now have in this country the conditions for long-term sustainable growth. Last year, the economy grew by 2% – double what people expected – and I quote: “The world’s largest economic survey shows Britain leading Europe out of recession.” That is official; that is what the British Chambers of Commerce say quite apart from what the Government believes. [Applause] We have interest rates at 5.5%, the lowest for 17 years and amongst the lowest in Europe. The time lost through strikes is now the lowest for over a hundred years since records were kept; unemployment down around a quarter of a million since last January. In the United Kingdom still one-in-ten still without work most of them [Inaudible]

I am not in any way complacent about unemployment, neither do I dismiss for a second the effect that it has upon individuals and their families but that one-in-ten figure is now falling. In other countries that is not the case. In the United Kingdom one-in ten and falling, in France one-in-eight and rising, in Spain one-in four and rising, in the whole of the European Community one-in-nine and rising. We are the only country in Europe seeing more jobs and shorter dole queues and I intend to ensure that we see more jobs and shorter dole queues in the future as well. [Applause]

Set against that background, it is hardly surprising that our flexible labour markets are the envy of many others in Europe. Your President spoke of the Social Chapter. It wasn’t easy to say No to the Social Chapter but it was right to say No to the Social Chapter and however it may come back to us, this year, next year, some time in the future, I shall say No to the Social Chapter again and I will tell you why: not just because it damages competitiveness though it does but because I think it is morally wrong to provide fresh help for those people in work and ensuring in so doing that those people out of work have an even smaller chance of getting back into work at some stage in the future. [Applause]

We have at the moment in the economic circumstances that are coming together – and they have painfully come together, they have not magically appeared, they have painfully been brought together over the past two or three years – some unique opportunities and don’t let anyone kid you that we can’t take them.

You spoke, Mr. President, of people not appreciating what was right in this country and sometimes knocking it. Well here perhaps are a few things that everyone should know:

We export 20% more per head than Japan and 85% more per head than the United States of America; we have more companies listed in the top hundred European companies than any other country and Japanese and United States companies have chosen to invest in the United Kingdom more than in any other European country; they have shown with their cash, their investment and their hopes for their future that they have a vote for this country and the future of this country.

We have seen in the last decade or so massive economic changes for the better. The average family today is taking home around £60 a week more after tax and after inflation. Twice as many of our people in this country have foreign holidays, there are twice as many two-car families. I could spread that list to the corners of this room and back again but it isn’t just the material improvement in our well-being that matters. How many of our young people now go on to higher education? They have more than doubled in the last decade or so. One in every three of our young people now have that opportunity. That was the target I set for the Government to be reached by the year 2000; we have reached that one-in-three target this year – that target has already been met.

And then take another aspect of our lift in this country, charitable giving, again more than doubled and not least from those of you in business.

But if the changes of the last fifteen years have been rapid [Inaudible] the world is changing, changing at a bewildering pace, becoming more competitive for you to operate in than at any time we have seen at any stage in the past. Our markets will change, Europe will change. The countries of eastern Europe may well be members of the European Union, markets for us but also competitors for us as well. The economies of the Pacific Rim will continue to grow rapidly.

In this country, we, you, business are going to have to prepare for that. We have to keep asking ourselves the questions: “Are we meeting demand? Where are our weaknesses? Are others doing better than us? If so, why and crucially, what can we do about it to make sure we maintain our competitive edge?” Above all we need to give businesses more freedom, the freedom to succeed. I tell you what success means: success means keeping business taxes low, keeping business free of rules and regulations, backing British exports, investing in our infrastructure and investing in people and in skills.

We have acted in each and every one of those areas and there is a good deal more still to be done. We have brought corporation tax down, our business taxes are the lowest in the European Union and I intend to keep them that way. But ask any businessman – in Leeds or anywhere else you like – what he really wants from Government! You have given me several answers tonight but if to take your example of the genie, you could have had only one wish, I bet you would have replied like this: “Right Government! Get off my back and get rid of the red tape!” That, I believe, is what business wants from the Government. [Applause]

I agree and we are acting on it. We have a huge Deregulation Bill cutting excessive regulation across Government, in transport, in employment, in environment and in fair trading. The bonfire of the [Inaudible] an end to controls, to forms and to paperwork and I was delighted to hear of your support for that tonight, Mr. President.

We are backing British exports – the opportunities are there and you are taking them. Just this morning, the trade figures have shown yet again that exports are running at record levels and now we have a GATT deal opening new markets all around the world and let me tell you this: very reserved we are we British, we don’t bang our own drum very often, not often enough in fact, so let me do it now:

Mr. President, without Britain I doubt whether there would have been a GATT deal at all nor for sure would there have been a Single Market and yet today as the rest of Europe comes out of recession GATT opens up the world market and we have a Single Market of over 340 million people right on our doorstep. I am determined that the Government will help British exporters make the best of those opportunities. We have expanded insurance cover for exports and lowered premiums, you in business have loaned your whiz-kids to Michael Heseltine so that the DTI can provide the best possible export advice, our embassies abroad are putting more and more effort into helping British exporters large and small; more than ever promoting British interests means promoting British trade abroad.

But business needs good back-up at home as well because to sell the goods you have to move the goods and that is why we are modernising British transport. For years we have had this ludicrous hang-up, this ludicrous belief that big projects can only be done by the State – rot! Who built the railways in the first place? The private sector built the railways – you did and you can do it again in the future.

So we are now opening-up major projects to private sector investment and private sector expertise. The private sector will help to build the Channel Tunnel rail link and the new Forth Road Bridge, it will modernise the West Coast main line and there is a great deal more to add to that.

But there is a bigger, longer-term issue that will determine whether Britain will lead the world into the next century. You cannot be competitive without the people to compete and they are moulded in our schools, in our colleges, in our universities as well as in the training grounds of British industry. In many respects, the position is good but in others it isn’t and we frankly cannot afford it not to be, quite literally can’t afford it. Illiteracy and innumeracy among the work-force cost you as employers around £5 billion a year and it costs the children themselves through stunted lives, opportunities missed and a life less rich than it should be and that is why getting back to basics in education must be at the centre of our programme.

I intend to work with teachers to build a better educated society. The national curriculum backed by testing will ensure that all State schools concentrate on the basics of education, on grammar, on spelling, on maths, on science, on reading, writing and arithmetic – the three R’s. I believe that is what parents demand, it is what employers ask and it is what I am determined that the education system will deliver.

But I believe there is more still to come. I still believe that we must get rid of the damaging distinction that some people make between white-collar skills and so-called blue-collar skills. What disruptive class-ridden nonsense those distinctions are! Every individual’s different skills and qualities count and they must be made to count in their interests and in our country’s interests and that is why we have improved the range and quality of vocational qualifications for pupils over sixteen.

I now want to work towards opening-up those opportunities, opening them up for children from fourteen upwards who want to take them so that schools will have the chance to teach a mix of academic and vocational subjects each with equal value, each to fit the child and their own aptitude to build a better future for them and help them build a better future for all of us.

That must be true for all young people. That is why we have abolished the false distinction between polytechnics and universities, it is why we have created modern apprenticeships to treble the number of young people skilled as technicians, craftsmen and supervisors.

Mr. President, let me just make the point plain: what we are working for is nothing less than the re-skilling of Britain and anyone who has come up the hard way knows how many others there are who have talent but don’t have the luck, who have talent but don’t break through the barriers, who have talent but don’t have the chance to contribute all that they could from their skills and their will to work. I am determined to give them that chance in the future. Decent education first, good training later – that is the way to let everyone fulfil their potential regardless of who they are or where they may have started.

None of this, Mr. President, is abstract stuff. It is for real. What is at stake is our future as a country and their future as individuals and here in your city of Leeds I believe you know this better than almost anywhere else.

Thirty years ago – not all that long – Leeds could have settled for being just a declining textile city but you didn’t. You acquired new skills and you made the old skills pay. Textiles aren’t a thing of the past, they have a future and Leeds has some of the most advanced plants in Europe. The new industries have a future too: financial services, food processing, defence, medicine and high-tech industries, huge investments coming to Leeds, a massive vote of confidence with other people putting their money and their future in your city because you know here in Leeds what change means, you know you can ride it and you have proved it in the past and I think it is no wonder that independent estimates say that Leeds is the fastest-growing job magnet in Britain for the 1990s.

Yes, competitiveness is about making Britain prosperous and powerful but it is more than that: it is also the means to provide all that is civilised in the life we love. Your two great universities here, your theatres, Opera North, the Leeds Piano Competition, your famous art galleries, you brought together here some of the finest public collection of Henry Moore in Britain if not in the world and I am even told the gallery has been eyeing-up the Henry Moore sculptures in Downing Street but much though I love you, you can keep your hands off my Henry Moore sculptures!

As it is in the arts, so too in sport. Leeds home to Rugby League, football – and here my eyes mist over – cricket, Headingly. I don’t know, looking round this audience, how many cricketers may be here this evening. One or two and I bet every single one of you remembers that test match in Headingly in 1981. It seemed impossible for England but we won but don’t just remember the runs that Botham scored, the resistance of Dilley or the wickets of Willis; remember that it was that gritty Yorkshireman Chris Old who held the show together when it mattered and opened the opportunity for that victory. I still remember at the most difficult moment of all that great Australian fast bowler Dennis Lilley saying this: “I’m betting on England to win!” Well, looking round Leeds today and looking at all of you tonight let me tell you what I am doing: I’m betting on Britain to win and I’m confident that we will. [Applause]

January 28, 1994
Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Loyal Address – 18 November 1993

Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement, made on 18th November 1993, on the Loyal Address.

PRIME MINISTER:

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : The House will wish me to congratulate my hon. Friends who so ably moved and seconded Her Majesty’s Loyal Address.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) reminded the House, we have both contested parts of St. Pancras in our time. My hon. Friend did so rather earlier and with rather more success than I. He won Holborn and St. Pancras, South and held the seat between 1959 and 1964, whereas I regret that I lost St. Pancras, North to the noble Lord Stallard in 1974. However, it is as the hon. Member for East Grinstead, and now as the hon. Member for Wealden, that my hon. Friend has become best known in the House.

During his lengthy public service the House has benefited from his expert knowledge in many areas of policy, and perhaps above all in defence, in which he was a Minister during the 1970s. He was also the Chairman of the Conservative Back Bench defence committee for many years. He is an acknowledged expert and is recognised as such by every hon. Member. During that time, my hon. Friend has built a reputation as being someone who speaks when he has something to say, and as someone who deserves to be listened to. That is an enviable reputation for any hon. Member to obtain.

I looked back at the maiden speech by my hon. Friend. At that stage, he was much exercised by a traffic scheme which turned much of St. Pancras into what was then called a “pink zone”. Alas, that area has turned into a political red zone, and my hon. Friend has moved onwards.

The Leader of the Opposition, like me, has passed the age of 50 and recalls my hon. Friend’s other distinguished career as a television interviewer. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, my hon. Friend interviewed the famous, the notorious, and the not so famous on “Tonight”. When my hon. Friend did so, he was watched by four times as many people as will watch “Newsnight” tonight. That may speak volumes for the discrimination of those who watched television at that time, rather than those who will engage in late-night television watching this evening. The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he moved the Loyal Address. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is one of the House’s survivors. He has been targeted three times by the Labour party at elections ; on three occasions, it has missed. At the previous election, the bookies gave odds of three to one against my hon. Friend. He laid a hefty sum of money on himself and cleaned up. I advise my hon. Friend to lay his money now for the next election before the odds begin to change–as they surely will. My hon. Friend has been an outstanding businessman. He started his own business which now employs hundreds of people in different parts of the country. He is held in respect here, not only for his expertise as an engineer but, as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) generously acknowledged, for his deep and abiding compassion for disabled people and others who are unable to help themselves.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East, is a formidable fighter for his constituency. Week after week he persuades Minister after Minister to visit it. Those Ministers are brave men. When I visited Bolton with my hon. Friend, a large crowd kept throwing eggs at him, very nearly hitting me. Curiously, none of my other right hon. and hon. Friends who have visited Bolton with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East faced that difficulty.

This will be a memorable week for my hon. Friend. Today he seconded the Humble Address. Tomorrow, following the marriage of his daughter, Sophie, in the Crypt Chapel, he will address an audience on an occasion that will be more memorable even than today’s. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing him and his daughter and her husband a happy day.

Neither convention nor conviction compels me to be as complimentary about the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East–as ever, it was Monklands music hall. It was excellent for the Palace of Varieties, but a touch light for the Palace of Westminster. It was the old content-free regime. [Interruption.] It was an agreeable speech that said nothing at length, as always. I shall turn to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a few moments– [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. Hon. Gentlemen must contain themselves or I shall have to take action against them. I do not wish to do that so early in the Session.

The Prime Minister : To the extent that anything is written here, it is a compliment on my powers of anticipation. I shall return to some of the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a few moments. I first wish to speak of other matters of concern to every hon. Member.

Despite the legislative programme, Northern Ireland must remain at the head of our priorities in the foreseeable future. Our outrage in this House and elsewhere at repeated carnage must not be blunted simply because we have lived with the problem for so long. The stark fact is that terrorism has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 people in Northern Ireland since 1969 – 75 of them this year alone. There are, I believe, two moods in Northern Ireland. There is a palpable mood for peace. But there is also, among some people, a feeling that the dead must be endlessly avenged and that any accommodation with the opposing view would betray those who have died. Surely the right memorial to those who have been murdered is to ensure that no one else is murdered in future. Unfortunately, avenging the dead means more dead, and they then call out to be avenged as well.

We are not looking for peace at any price. A peace that involved conceding to terrorism or negotiating under its shadow would not be acceptable to the Government or, I believe, to the people of Northern Ireland. Nonetheless, there may now be a chance that we should try to take. I do not wish to raise false hopes. History and deeply entrenched positions can all too easily bring a sense of despair, as we have seen so often in the past. However, there may be an opportunity for progress, and we must explore that opportunity. If we do not succeed on this occasion, we must go back and keep exploring again and again that opportunity for peace.

Our chances improve if we have the support of both sides of the community, of all the constitutional parties and of the Irish Government. But no party and no organisation can exercise a veto on progress. That has been the basis of my consultations, and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, over recent months–those consultations with the constitutional parties and with the Irish Government. We hope to make further progress before, during and after my meeting with the Taoiseach in Dublin next month. Our aim is clear. We seek both a permanent end to violence and a political settlement. We have made substantial progress in the three areas of the political talks. We are talking bilaterally, because a premature attempt to convene a round table conference would probably be counter-productive. But if at an appropriate time it would help the process to put proposals of our own on the table, we shall be ready to do so. We are certainly prepared for that.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : In one moment, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

I said earlier this week that Sinn Fein could enter the political arena if the IRA’s violence ended for good and was so demonstrated over a sufficient interval. If they send such a message, we are ready to listen to them. Indeed, it would be irresponsible not to. But, by itself, a statement of intent by them is not enough. The violence must stop and it must be seen to stop.

The position of the Government should not be misunderstood. The democratic process is there for all who show that they can abide by its rules. But there will be no rewards for terrorism. Nor will we compromise on the vital principle that there can be no change in Northern Ireland’s status without the freely expressed consent of its people. It is for the people of Northern Ireland freely and democratically to determine their own constitutional future. I warmly welcome what the Irish Prime Minister and deputy Prime Minister have said to support the principle of consent, and the talks process, and to accept the need for changes in the Irish constitution. That is the framework within which we and the Irish Government will work for peace, stability and reconciliation. We are ready to respond to a cessation of violence. I said so with the Taoiseach in Brussels on 29 October. I said so at the Guildhall and I say so again to the House. It is now for Sinn Fein and the IRA, and equally for the loyalist paramilitary organisations, to draw the right conclusions.

Mr. Ashdown : The House will have heard the important statement that the Prime Minister has made on the subject of Northern Ireland. To the extent that the Prime Minister has–and he has–put his personal authority behind that, he deserves the support of the whole House and ought to get it.

The point that he made earlier about being prepared for the British Government to put down their proposals if agreement cannot be reached between the constitutional parties is an extremely important one. I put it to him that it is probably equally important that he does not leave it too long before doing that, and that there is a moment arriving–surely not far away–when that step, if agreement can- not be reached between the constitutional parties, will have to be taken and the British Government will have to put their own initiative where agreement cannot be fully reached.

The Prime Minister : We are still seeking to talk and reach that position through dialogue bilaterally with the constitutional parties. That clearly is the first prize, but we have prepared for the proposition that that may not be possible. I very much hope that it will.

Mr. Norman Lamont (Kingston upon Thames) : The House will have listened extremely carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said. Will he give the House a clearer indication as to what he thinks the negotiations would be about? Is not it the case that Sinn Fein is not interested in pure power sharing with Ulster? Is not it the case that the only conditions on which the IRA would give up violence, and with the agreement of Sinn Fein, would be if there were further moves towards the unification of Ireland? Is not that the point?

The Prime Minister : I think that my right hon. Friend will have heard me a moment ago, for I said it quite deliberately so that nobody could misunderstand it. The House heard me repeat the constitutional guarantee that was set out before. I have repeated it publicly on a number of occasions so that nobody seeking to make judgments on these matters can be in any doubt about the seriousness with which the Government take that constitutional guarantee. It is a cast-iron guarantee. The future constitutional position of the people of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to determine and for no one else to determine. I am happy to repeat to my right hon. Friend that that is the firmly established position of the Government and that it will remain so for so long as I lead the Government.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Does the Prime Minister accept that, while it is desirable for the constitutional parties to be involved, if at the end of the day agreement cannot be reached with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, an agreement of a wide-ranging kind for a political settlement can be reached between the two Governments which obviously accepts the wish of the present majority in Northern Ireland to remain in the Unit, would mean that there would be no chance of peace in Northern Ireland? Is not there one constitutional party, the Democratic Unionists, which cannot be relied on to provide the progress that we all wish to see?

The Prime Minister : I chose my words with great care and with some consideration a few moments ago. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I do not wish to add to them. The consent of the people of Northern Ireland, to whatever is determined, is clearly going to be the central and most important requirement of any successful settlement.

While Northern Ireland touches us all, the economy affects us all. The whole House will have welcomed the increasingly good news in the past few days–

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East) : I missed it.

The Prime Minister : The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) says that he missed it. Where has he been? There were better than expected trade figures last week ; better than expected inflation figures yesterday–down from 1.8 per cent. to 1.4 per cent. in October–and there were better than expected unemployment figures today. The figure is down by 50,000 and that is the biggest monthly fall for four years. Unemployment has now fallen by 137,000 this year.

I can pinpoint with great accuracy the moment when the figures started to turn downwards. It was exactly the moment when the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) predicted :

“I make one Budget forecast–that, after the Budget, unemployment will rise this month, next month and for months afterwards.”–[ Official Report, 17 March 1993 ; Vol. 221, c. 289.]

The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is, alas, clearly engaged on more important matters than the debate on the Queen’s Speech. However, he does not have much luck with predictions. He is always wrong. For him, the laws of probability and statistics are suspended. If I could persuade the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East to tell me which horse was bound to lose the grand national, I promise him that I would put my shirt on that horse with a great deal of confidence.

As other countries remain in recession, we are emerging from it. We now have the opportunity of a long period of sustained growth with low inflation. There has been a great deal of pain, effort and difficulty in getting inflation down, but we can now see the rewards. Inflation has been under 2 per cent. for the past nine months, a situation not seen for more than 30 years. As a result of that, recovery–as we said it would–is following : gross domestic product is up; manufacturing output is up; retail sales are up; and export volumes are up. It is no wonder that a recent survey of international business shows that Europe’s business leaders think that the United Kingdom is now the best place for manufacturing investment.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister : I will give way in a little while. Those business leaders know that we have the lowest inflation rate in the G7; the second lowest inflation rate in the Community; among the lowest interest rates in the Community; the predicted highest growth rate in the Community this year and next; and that we are one of only two Community countries in which unemployment is falling. Business also knows that, contrary to the position that was honestly stated again by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we are determined to keep social on-costs down. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went to Brussels last Friday to sign up to every dot and comma of the socialist European manifesto. But that was Friday. On Saturday, he said that he had not meant what he signed up to. I do not know why–perhaps he had not read it or he had not understood it. At any rate, on Saturday he did not mean it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously thought that it was unfair of those beastly foreign socialists to take him at his word. I sympathise with him–they are difficult–but the right hon. and learned Gentleman really should read what he signs. It is tedious, I know, but it is very worthwhile, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman found out.

One other thing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman signed up to, which he neglected to mention in his speech today, when he had a great deal to say about VAT on fuel, is the European socialist manifesto which says :

“We stand for a tax system which penalises work less and environmental pollution more Forms of taxation which can improve the ecological and energy situation have a role to play.” I could only assume that that was another part of the socialist manifesto that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not read, did not understand, or had his earphones on and did not hear. The economic news that I outlined a few moments ago is the background against which we bring forward our legislative programme. At the heart of the Gracious Speech are measures to tackle crime, improve teaching in our schools and make our economy more competitive. I believe that those are the right policies because they provide the foundations for a successful, tolerant and responsible society. We can raise standards in our schools, make our streets safer and make our economy more competitive by building on those basic values.

I am not surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot understand the point about going back to basics. How can we expect him to understand basic values when Opposition Members repeatedly vote against increasing sentences for violent crime, when they oppose tests in schools, when, in the same breath, they call for lower taxes and higher spending, and when they still do not trust people to make their own decisions in health, in education, in pensions, in housing and in many other aspects of life? “Basic values” means basic economic values such as low inflation, free markets and a climate that encourages free enterprise, basic social values such as self-discipline, respect for the law, concern for others, individual responsibility and an emphasis on getting the basics of education right first. That means taking on as well the spread of politically correct thinking.

I am afraid that the Labour party is all too often out of touch with the values and instincts of the British nation. Labour Members voted against every piece of legislation to introduce tougher penalties for crime, voted against the measures that allow people to appeal against over-lenient sentences, against testing in schools, against grant-maintained status, against A-levels, against city technology colleges, and against rents for mortgages. They have voted against every one of those–against stopping people jumping the housing queue, against privatisation and against a great deal else. They have voted against every single measure to extend choice and give greater opportunity to individuals, every single measure to help people to take more responsibility for themselves, and every single measure to make life more difficult for the criminal and to make people safer in their streets. It is no wonder they do not understand back to basics.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : Since it is the Prime Minister’s vogue word, I ask the Prime Minister the basic question : if back to basics is suddenly the right policy, who is to blame for the past 14 years?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman clearly has not been listening, but I will tell him about the past 14 years. It is a time when average incomes have risen, when there is more spent on the national health service than ever before, when the number of young people going into further and higher education has gone up to one in three in the community, and when the value of pensions has gone up. But there is one battle which I concede we did not win. That was the battle against fashionable opinion and the theories of those who are light years away from the interests of the British people. I turn directly to the centrepiece of the difference between the Government and the Labour party. The centrepiece of this programme is a criminal justice Bill. The whole House shares a deep concern about the level of crime. To prove that, I hope that the whole House will unite behind our proposals to tackle crime instead of, as Labour Members have done on every occasion in the past, voting against every measure that we have brought forward to tackle crime.

Our proposals respond to people’s fear. Crime is not just a problem for the well-to-do. It often hits hardest those people who have the least, which is why the right hon. and learned Gentleman utterly failed to understand the quote of mine that he misused a few minutes ago. Nor is the loss of material possessions the only damage done by crimes like theft. Often, the greatest hurt by far is the loss of treasured possessions of sentimental value and the loss of that feeling of security that people have an absolute right to feel in their own homes.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?– [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister : If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is so concerned about crime, why did he vote against every measure that we brought forward to curtail it? It is no wonder that he is against back to basics. He is certainly pretty basic himself. He makes Neanderthal man look chic.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

The Prime Minister : I shall make a little progress. I share the view of most people in this country that the balance has been tilted for too long in favour of the criminal and away from the victim. The criminal justice Bill will correct that. We shall continue to give the police greater flexibility in the use of their resources to fight crime.

Mr. Campbell-Savours rose —

The Prime Minister : I shall give way in a moment. We will provide extra prison places so that sentences can reflect the gravity of the crime, not the availability of prison cells. We will crack down on people reoffending while on bail. Some people seem to think that bail is a licence to commit crime. The new Bill will show them that they are wholly wrong about that.

One of the most serious problems we face is that of juvenile crime. Far too many crimes against property are committed by young people. The Bill will introduce new secure units for persistent offenders to break the cycle of offending. The fact is that, unless we are prepared to make clear to people at a young age that some behaviour will not be tolerated, we cannot be surprised if they continue to reoffend as they get older. To be too lenient in the short term means that we fail our children in the longer term, and it is time that that was faced up to. The Bill will also deter criminals by making sure that, once caught, they are prosecuted and, if convicted, effectively punished. There will be less cautioning and an end to the abuse of the right to silence that has been exploited by so many.

Mr. Campbell-Savours rose —

The Prime Minister : I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

In some areas, the current law has been too slow to act. If squatters, travellers or trespassers occupy people’s property, they should be able to get them out–and quickly. The new Bill will ensure that they can do so.

The Bill covers a range of other matters. I will mention just one of them today. It will provide stronger powers and heavier penalties against child pornography. Previously, possessors of child pornography could only be fined. For the first time, the Bill will provide, in appropriate circumstances, for a prison sentence, and the police will have stronger powers of arrest and search and seizure of those who make and sell this material. I hope that the whole House will welcome that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : The Prime Minister has much to say about crime. Can he answer a simple question? Why has the incidence of crime doubled during the past 14 years of Conservative government?

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman’s question was not quite complete. He should have asked why the incidence of crime has doubled in every western country. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to help us, perhaps he and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East will tell us that they will support the proposals that we now put before the House.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : The right hon. Gentleman knows that in the Home Office’s recently published figures it was revealed that 5.7 million crimes were committed in the latest recorded year. Is that because he has been neglecting the basics for the past 14 years–or is it because the 64 pieces of legislation that he has already produced have failed to tackle the problem?

The Prime Minister : I am not sure that it was entirely wise to give way to the hon. Gentleman, for he trails over very old ground. Will he now tell us whether he will support the measures that are before the House? I suspect that the Labour party will not support them. The shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), was already preparing his escape route when he referred to my right hon. Friend’s new measures to tackle crime as “gimmicks”. Tougher powers for the police to stop terrorism are apparently a gimmick, as are cutting down paperwork and putting more policemen on the streets. Tougher measures to stop people offending on bail are, according to the Opposition, a gimmick. New prisons are a gimmick. That is the triviality of their response to the battle against crime.

As for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, who is sitting their shouting, he is no one to shout about the law. It was the hon. Member who said :

“do you obey the law or not obey the law? We”

–that is the Labour party–

“don’t have any firm principles of how we might deal with this problem.”

The hon. Gentleman said that in late 1989 and early 1990. I will give him the quote. If he is worried about that quote, perhaps he can tell me this : why, just last month, did Labour Members vote against a provision in the National Lottery etc. Bill to prevent lottery proceeds funding terrorism ? What sort of party and what sort of values do they have ?

Let me turn to the deregulation Bill that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East spoke about. One significant difficulty for business lies in meeting the demands of regulations. Over the years we have repealed examples of ludicrous over-regulation. Many of those that we repealed recently have lasted since the Labour Government of 1929, such as regulations on the temperature of bath water, on animal feed factories and on the distance between clothes pegs in cotton factory cloakrooms. There is still a long way to go to minimise regulation on companies. Earlier this year, we set up a series of task forces chaired by business men and business women to identify regulations that might be repealed. I thank the noble Lord Sainsbury and his colleagues for their report. As a result of their work, we shall introduce a deregulation Bill that will sweep away rules that tie firms up in excessive red tape. It will be the biggest package of deregulation since the 1950s and we shall bring the legislation forward in January. That approach is far more likely to help business than the policies of increased burdens, minimum wages, social chapters and more detailed regulations that are favoured by the Opposition. We want to repeal legislation that is a burden on business; the Labour party wants to repeal our legislation that removes burdens on business, especially trade union reform. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made clear–with that candour that we like so much–if given the opportunity, Labour are

“going to repeal”

–in terms of our trade union legislation–

“all of it–there is no little bits you can keep It all has to go”.

That means back to the closed shop, back to flying pickets, back to unions above the law and back to no more compulsory ballots. That is what the hon. Gentleman stands for.

Mr. Prescott : The Prime Minister is earning an unenviable reputation as a Prime Minister who constantly quotes from Labour Members’ recent speeches without giving any evidence of where those quotes come from. It is about time the Prime Minister produced the sources of his quotes. I challenge him to do so.

The Prime Minister : I will provide the hon. Gentleman with the sources. He probably thinks that he has been a victim of impersonation. I will give him another quote, together with the source, and perhaps that will help him.

The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, in his celebrated speech to the Confederation of British Industry, in which he said so little about the matters on which it would have wished to hear, did not remind the CBI that he had described ballots for union elections as

“intellectually disreputable”. Perhaps that explains why the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) remains a member of the shadow Cabinet, despite losing in the ballot. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is having some trouble containing himself. We have learnt what one member, one vote means : the right hon. and learned Gentleman is the member and his is the vote, despite what Labour Back-Bench Members vote.

In the Gracious Speech we propose to introduce legislation to improve the training of teachers. Our best schools are as good as any in the world, but we aim to raise the standards of all our schools to those of the best. The process is already under way with the national curriculum, annual reports, regular inspections and regular pencil and paper tests, not beloved by some Labour Members. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East should take a sedative and calm down.

The education Bill this Session will underpin the reform of teacher training. For too long teacher training has been based too heavily on theory. The Bill will create a new teacher training agency in England and will extend the powers of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. It will build on the arrangements for teacher training in the classroom, which we have already put in place. The agency will bring together funding for all types of courses and will be able to fund the most cost-effective to ensure the growth of the best courses.

The Bill will end one of the last closed shops in the United Kingdom–the student unions. Students should not be compelled to join their student union. In future they will not be so compelled. We shall introduce local government Bills to establish unitary authorities in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : Is it the Prime Minister’s intention to dismember Scottish local government and to remove Scottish water from local democratic control by the expedient of stuffing Commons’ Committees with English Conservative Back Benchers? Can he confirm that?

The Prime Minister : I would not put the matter remotely like that, so I cannot confirm it.

Alongside the reforms in Wales and Scotland are the reforms still being developed in England. We intend these to be the last significant reforms of local government for many years. We are putting in place a structure to endure and to pass the test of time.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West) rose —

The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is too tempting to miss.

Mr. Canavan : How can the Prime Minister possibly justify local government reorganisation in England being referred to an independent commission while proceeding immediately with legislation for Scotland and Wales without any reference to an independent commission? In view of the widespread concern, indeed outrage, throughout Scotland about this most expensive and extensive political carve-up in the history of local government, will the Prime Minister do the decent thing and refer the matter to an independent commission?

Otherwise, people in Scotland will rightly conclude that their country is being governed by a gang of gerrymandering crooks.

The Prime Minister : I do not think that they will remotely conclude that. The hon. Gentleman may believe it, but that is his problem and not mine. He is rather more of a problem to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition than to me or my colleagues.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) : Earlier in his speech the Prime Minister said several times that it is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide, freely and democratically, their own constitution. Why does the Prime Minister deny that right to the people of Scotland? Why does he resist the demands of the constitutional parties in Scotland for a multi- option referendum? The constitutional parties in Scotland–the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party–represent 75 per cent. of the voters in Scotland whereas the Conservative party represents only 25 per cent.

The Prime Minister : There was a referendum, and it failed. The hon. Gentleman has clearly forgotten that the necessary majority was not achieved.

The Queen’s Speech will introduce a range of Bills–to privatise British Coal, to reform Sunday trading, to enable the preparations for an environment agency to proceed, to reform elements of the social security system and a Bill to make the security services more accountable ; the Bill will place the secret intelligence services and the Government communications headquarters on a statutory basis. That follows on from the announcement I made in the debate on last year’s Gracious Speech, and represents a further step towards greater openness and accountability for the three intelligence security services.

This is a realistic programme that will meet the concerns of the country. It addresses practical problems in a practical way, and is light years away from the policies of the Opposition. Many people have complained about the Opposition’s lack of an economic policy, not least a number of Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said :

“Where we”–

the Labour party–

“are absolutely deficient is in suggesting that, in any respect, we have a clue about how to manage the economy. Or whether we should even try.”

Now he has his answer. His leader has signed up for an off-the-peg economic policy made in Brussels. The socialist European manifesto that the leader of the Opposition signed commits him to a single currency, with no mention of the opt out which we negotiated and which the Danish socialist Government retained. That manifesto also commits him to restrictions on free trade, European works councils, a guaranteed minimum wage and higher taxes for British businesses so that they do not compete “unfairly” with European firms. It may well be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not read all that, but that is what he signed up to.

The Labour party is not a party that is seriously seeking power. The Guardian said recently that the Labour party is like “a natural party of opposition”

–and it will remain a natural party of opposition. We are in government and will stay in government.

I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will give a warm welcome to the programme outlined in the Gracious Speech, and I commend it to the House.

November 18, 1993
Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the 1993 European Council in Brussels – 1 November 1993

Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement made in the House of Commons on 1st November 1993 on the 1993 European Council held in Brussels.

PRIME MINISTER:

The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): With permission, I shall make a statement about the special meeting of the European Council in Brussels on 29 October, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and also about my separate meeting in Brussels with the Irish Prime Minister. The documents issued by the European Council and the joint statement that I issued with the Taoiseach have both been placed in the Library of the House.

Agreement was reached at the European Council on a number of important points. It was decided that, later this month, Finance Ministers would consider a draft White Paper by the European Commission, setting out proposals on growth, competitiveness and employment. The United Kingdom has already put forward suggestions for that White Paper. The European Council renewed its commitment to secure a global commitment in the Uruguay round before the December deadline. The Council agreed to provide extra help to small and medium-sized businesses by widening the criteria for loans by the European investment bank.

The future location of a number of European Community institutions was decided. Some of those decisions were long overdue. Of the main institutions, it was agreed that the headquarters of the European Monetary Institute will be in Germany, the European Medicines Evaluation Agency in the United Kingdom, Europol in the Netherlands and the Trade Marks Office in Spain. The decision on the European Medicines Evaluation Agency should reinforce Britain’s position as the centre of the European pharmaceutical industry.

On Bosnia, the Council agreed to try to improve access for aid supplies as winter approaches. We are seeking credible assurances from the warring factions that they will not block access routes. The Council is also looking for more funding and troop contributions from outside the European Community, to supplement the huge efforts made, in particular, by Britain and by France. Work on the further Yugoslavia was identified as one possible area for joint action in foreign policy. The European Council also asked Foreign Ministers to consider joint action in support of the middle east peace process and to contribute to election monitoring by the United Nations in South Africa and in Russia.

Under the interior and justice pillar, the Council asked Ministers to bring forward proposals for co-operation in the fight against international crime and drugs, and over asylum and immigration problems. We agreed that the Europol drugs unit should be up and running within 12 months.

No one at the council was in any doubt that our highest priority is to restore sustainable, non-inflationary growth and to increase employment across the Community. I argued that the European Community had to confront its own structural weaknesses, which had led to a falling share of world markets and, by comparison with the OECD average, the loss of an estimated 9 million jobs since 1980. The quickest boost to growth and employment will be to secure a GATT agreement. It was also generally agreed that the Community needed to make its labour markets more flexible, to cut red tape nationally and in Brussels, to encourage investment and to create the right climate for new and growing businesses.

I believe that economic convergence is a helpful objective for each Community member state. It will assist in keeping inflation and interest rates as low as possible, as well as controlling public borrowing and debt.

In our discussions, I again made clear that I considered the timetable for economic and monetary union stage 3–a stage to which we are, of course, not committed–to be unrealistic. Public opinion and the recession have changed attitudes within the Community. Subsidiarity, for example, now has very strong support. During the past two years, the European Commission has halved the number of proposals that it has brought forward for new Community rules and regulations. In December, we shall be looking for specific proposals to cut back existing European Community law. There is increasing emphasis on inter-governmental co-operation, with decisions taken by consensus on both foreign and home affairs. We operate by agreement and not only through the treaty of Rome and the European Commission. The European Council concerned to respond to criticisms that arose throughout Europe during the debate on the Maastricht treaty. The Council declared :

“We wish to introduce greater transparency, openness and decentralisation in our procedures. We want a Europe close to the citizen and intervening only where necessary to pursue our common interests.”

We have argued long and hard for that approach within the Community, and I thoroughly welcome it.

Following the European Council meeting, I had a bilateral discussion with the Irish Prime Minister. Mr. Reynolds gave me an account of the report given to him by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), together with the assessment that the Irish Government have made in the light of it. He did not pass the report itself to me. We acknowledged the courageous efforts made by the hon. Member for Foyle, but agreed that the report could not in itself be a basis for action.

We agreed that the two Governments should continue to work together on the following basis : Northern Ireland’s situation should never be changed by violence or the threat of violence; any settlement must depend on consent, freely given; negotiations on a settlement could only involve constitutional politicians; there could be no secret agreement or understanding between Governments or organisations supporting violence as a price for its cessation; and those claiming a serious interest in advancing the cause of peace in Ireland should renounce the use of, or support for, violence. If and when such a renunciation of violence had been made, and had been sufficiently demonstrated, new doors could open, and both Governments would wish to respond to the new situation which would then arise.

The terrible events in Northern Ireland since our meeting last Friday have further underlined the urgent need for that process to succeed. As the House will know, last Saturday evening, two gunmen fired indiscriminately in a crowded bar in Greysteel, County Londonderry. Seven people died, ranging in age from 19 to 81, and 11 more were injured. A claim of responsibility for that appalling act was subsequently made by the Ulster Freedom Fighters.

The Royal Ulster Constabulary, who acted with exemplary speed and skill, have arrested nine people in connection with the attack. That, like the Shankill road bombing and the six other terrorist murders in Northern Ireland last week, was a barbarous and despicable attack on innocent and peaceful civilians. The whole House will wish to extend its profound sympathy to the victims’ families and friends. Less than 24 hours later, an RUC officer was shot and critically injured in Newry. That once again reminds us of the enormous debt that we owe to the brave men and women of that force.

Those murders will bring the terrorists no advantage, but only the prospect of long years in prison. Terrorism will not alter the constitutional guarantee that we have given the people of Northern Ireland. It will not defeat the security forces, and it will not deflect us from the search for a fair and lasting peace.

The joint statement with the Irish Prime Minister provides a clear basis for progress. Both Governments are committed to the talks process. The principle of consent must be at the heart of any settlement–as the Irish Deputy Prime Minister made clear last week, when he acknowledged the rights of Unionists to give or to withhold that consent. That clearly points to constitutional reform in the Irish Republic at the right time and in the right circumstances.

The Government will now intensify their efforts to find a basis for the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to carry on the talks progress. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will hold further discussions with the Irish Deputy Prime Minister in a meeting at the Intergovernmental Conference late this week. We are determined to do all that we can to bring peace to Northern Ireland. The further killings that occurred over the weekend make that search for peace all the more urgent.

Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making a statement on both aspects. I welcome the European Council’s confirmation of the enlargement timetable for Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden so that negotiations are completed by March 1994 and accession by 1 January 1995. I welcome also the commitment to achieving within the timetable a successful conclusion to the GATT talks, and the initiative proposed for closer police co-operation under Europol.

As to the economic aspect, given the depressing realities of the economic situation in the Community, with 17 million unemployed, and with any recovery in Britain at best patchy and fragile, why is there not a greater sense of urgency on the part of the United Kingdom Government and other member states in taking more effective action to stimulate their economies and to bring down unemployment? With the Bundesbank having begun to reduce its interest rates, is there not a strong case for co-ordinating interest rates cuts across the Community–not least in this country, where manufacturing output has fallen and the construction industry remains dangerously weak? Although we welcome the modest extra help to small and medium-sized businesses that was promised at the European Council meeting, can the Prime Minister explain why initiatives agreed as long ago as last year’s Edinburgh summit have not yet been acted upon?

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that it was agreed at that summit to establish a European investment fund in addition to the increased facilities available through the European investment bank. He will be aware also that, for the European investment bank to establish the new fund, it will be necessary to amend the new protocol to the treaty of Rome. Can the Prime Minister explain why, nearly one year after the Edinburgh summit, that has not been done by the United Kingdom and other member states? Will he give the House an undertaking that there will be no more delay in pursuing an initiative for which he claimed credit at Edinburgh?

Will the Prime Minister explain why his Government are denying to areas of high unemployment and industrial decline in the United Kingdom more than £300 million of European funding because of spending restrictions on local authorities–an approach which is locking this country out of desperately needed investment funds? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when his policy was to have Britain at the heart of Europe, the European Monetary Institute is to be placed at the heart of Germany? How will he explain to the City of London that latest triumph of his negotiating skills? Perhaps it is a case of game, set and match to the Bundesbank.

On Bosnia, what evidence is there that the declaration will have any significant impact on Serbian and Croatian aggression? Why did the Council not insist on making effective United Nations Security Council resolution 824 on safe areas in Sarajevo and elsewhere in Bosnia? Will the airlift be significantly increased to provide desperately needed winter aid to the starving people of Bosnia? I join the Prime Minister in condemning without reservation the atrocities committed by the so-called Ulster Freedom Fighters in Greysteel, County Londonderry. Let me also express our concern at the shooting of an RUC officer in Newry by the IRA. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that these latest outrages have increased the powerful feeling, in Great Britain as well as on both sides of the border in Ireland, that efforts to find a political way forward must be pursued with renewed intensity? Is it not abundantly clear that a cessation of the horrific violence is what is passionately desired by the overwhelming majority in both Great Britain and Ireland?

For our part, we would welcome an early resumption of the talks process. We believe that the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland have a moral obligation to return to the negotiating table without preconditions. Any resumption of the talks, however, should take place within the previous three-strand structure, and on the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. However, while efforts to persuade the parties to return to the talks will proceed, the two Governments have a responsibility to the peoples of these islands to attempt to develop their own institutional framework for peace. I urge the Government to examine carefully the broad thrust of the six principles outlined by the Irish Deputy Prime Minister ; they must accept, however, that those principles contain a fine balance between nationalist and Unionist aspirations, which should not be destroyed by their being treated selectively.

Opposition Members recognise the courageous and imaginative work undertaken by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). We also recognise the political and personal risks that he has taken–not just recently, but over a long period–in an attempt to bring peace to the troubled situation. May I suggest to the Prime Minister that, whatever progress is made in talks between the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic must continue to consider ways forward, and not hesitate to develop proposals themselves which could be put to the other parties. The public in both Britain and Ireland are looking in the first instance to their Governments to make and sustain a new initiative for peace.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman touched on a large number of important points in my statement. I shall endeavour to respond to all his comments.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for welcoming enlargement, for which there was strong support from all the Heads of Government at the European Community meeting. There was also support for a completion of the GATT talks by 15 December, police co-operation on Europol and the general efforts to deal with money laundering and organised crime.

As for the economic points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made, 18 million people are indeed unemployed across the Community at present. It is estimated that that figure will reach 20 million as unemployment rises sharply, particularly in France and Spain, over the next 12 months. An urgent examination of the policies is indeed under way : that is precisely what the White Paper is doing. It will be considered by Finance Ministers in ECOFIN–the Economic and Finance Council–within the month, and then remitted to the Heads of Government for their meeting in Brussels on 9 December. I think that there is scope for interest rate reductions in some countries in Europe ; some have already been made. I said that when I spoke to the Heads of Government meeting on Friday last week. As for the initiative on the European investment fund, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that it needs legislative cover throughout the Community. Virtually no member state has yet completed the necessary legislative cover, but we shall be able to do so speedily. I look forward to support from the official Opposition when I present the legislation to the House. As for others, I cannot compel them to deal with it speedily, but I have told them in our discussions that I hope that they will be able to do so.

I assume that, in expressing concern about the £300 million, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to European Community funds. We made it clear to the Commission that we expect European Community funds allocated to the United Kingdom to be taken up by the end of this calendar year–not the financial year.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman neglected to mention that many hundreds of jobs will come to London with the European Medicines Evaluation Agency, but I am sure that he will welcome the several hundred direct jobs and the large number of secondary jobs that will be created as a result of that institution coming here. The European Monetary Institute has gone to Germany. That was the consensus among the Community, and since we are not committed to stage 3, it is unsurprising that the consensus was that it should go elsewhere.

The activities of the Opposition last year did not help our negotiating position. [Interruption.] We will take their attitude to Europe seriously when they cease to obstruct European legislation that they claim to be in favour of. They speak with one voice in Europe but another in the Lobby.

I turn now to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments on Bosnia. He has a touching faith in declarations. I am bound to say that he is not dealing with entirely civilised men in Bosnia who are seeking to block the humanitarian aid. We are seeking to open corridors to ensure that we shall be able to get the aid through this winter. That will involve a massive effort. The strain of the effort thus far has been taken by the British and the French. We hope that others will make a larger contribution, and that point was made forcefully in our discussions after the last day.

I can agree with many of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s points on Northern Ireland. Like him, I would welcome an early resumption of the talks under the three-strand process. I am less concerned about the format than the fact of the talks, but it is desirable to get the fact of the talks under way as soon as possible.

There is a great deal in the Tanaiste’s six principles with which we can agree–not all of them, but they are a helpful contribution to the debate, and I am happy to acknowledge that that is most certainly so. We wish to work with people to ensure that the talks process is a success. The Government would be willing, if others would find it helpful, to bring forward proposals to provide focus and direction for new talks once they begin. It is a hopeful sign that there seems to be a greater willingness to return to talks. I hope that that willingness will become a reality.

Mr. Norman Lamont (Kingston upon Thames): Is the Prime Minister aware that many people had seen this Council as an opportunity for greater realism on the part of the European Community? Will the Prime Minister explain to the House, given the views that he expressed in The Economist, given the break-up of the exchange rate mechanism, and given the views that he has expressed this afternoon about the timetable for monetary union, what is the purpose in going forward with a European Monetary Institute on the timetable envisaged in Maastricht? What will the EMI do? Are we not in danger of being drawn into a further bout of fantasy by the European Community, from which we shall find it difficult to extricate ourselves?

Secondly, there will be support on both sides of the House for the Prime Minister’s initiative on Northern Ireland, but may I ask him for the assurance that there is no question of an amnesty for terrorists and no question of any negotiation with anyone who has been involved in terrorism in the past?

Several hon. Members rose —

Madam Speaker: Order. Before the Prime Minister responds, will he allow me to say that many hon. Members are seeking to ask questions? It will be impossible to call all of them unless questions are brisk and to the point, and answers equally so.

The Prime Minister: I shall deal with my right hon. Friend’s second point first. There are no political prisoners anywhere in the United Kingdom, so the question of amnesties does not arise in any way.

On the European Monetary Institute, there is indeed much greater realism across the Community, as the declaration from which I quoted a few moments ago illustrates very clearly. As my right hon. Friend will know, stage 2 in no sense infringes our monetary sovereignty and, as he will also recall, stage 2, which was negotiated by myself and my right hon Friend, was included in the Maastricht treaty and in our domestic legislation, and that treaty and the domestic legislation require it to commence on 1 January.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil): It is a good thing that the Maastricht treaty is now at last in place, but it is, I regret, a bad thing that the Government, under the Prime Minister’s leadership, have once again at this special Council led Europe in its retreat from its responsibilities in Bosnia a failure over which many lives will be lost and which will cause much misery in the coming winter. On Northern Ireland, does the Prime Minister accept that, for whatever understandable reason, there has been a certain loss of political momentum following the breakdown of the cross-party talks a year ago? Does he agree that this is the moment when he and the Irish Taoiseach could take personal charge? I hope that his statement means that that is what they now intend to do.

Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that the six principles outlined by Dick Spring offer not only an appropriate way forward but some reassurance for the Unionist cause, and that the most important thing that could be done now to give impetus to progress towards peace would be if those who represent the Unionist cause could find it possible to utter some welcome, however guarded and partial, for those principles?

The Prime Minister: I shall deal first with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks on Bosnia. I find his continuing criticism of what has been achieved by this country, our voluntary services and our troops in Bosnia to be contemptible, and I use the word advisedly. It is time that the right hon. Gentleman stopped grandstanding on this issue and learned some of the facts about Bosnia and the realities of what can be achieved.

On Northern Ireland, the Taoiseach and I certainly propose to take a very close interest in the development of these discussions. We are both committed to seeing a success and to doing everything that can realistically be done to bring an end to bloodshed and to bring peace to the people of Northern Ireland. I acknowledge again, as I did a few moments ago, the importance of the principles enunciated by the Irish Deputy Prime Minister a few days ago. They seem to suggest that, in the right circumstances, articles 2 and 3 can be repealed, or at least put to a referendum for repeal, in the Republic of Ireland. I think that that will be very reassuring and that it is a considerable contribution to the search for peace.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster): Does my right hon. Friend accept that the horrors of Northern Ireland place an awesome responsibility on him, on the Government and, indeed, on us all? Does he also accept that a settlement, or at least agreement on progress towards a settlement, would be an achievement of historic proportions for him and for his right hon. Friends?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that no one underestimates in any way the difficulties that lie in the way of progress in the present situation, but I do not believe that anyone who has observed what has happened in Northern Ireland–not only in the past three weeks, horrific though that has been, but in recent years–can be remotely satisfied with the status quo. Nothing that can realistically be done to bring peace and progress should be left undone.

Mr. John Hume (Foyle) rose —

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hume: May I join the Prime Minister in condemning the horrific slaughter in Greysteel on Saturday evening of so many decent people? May I also say that it is an insult to the memory of the decent people of the Shankill road who were murdered the previous week to use their murder as a reason for murdering others? Let no one be under any illusion : in a divided society, solutions can never be brought about by any form of violence or coercion.

Given that that has been my position and that of my party for the past terrible 25 years, I say that it is the responsibility of all people– especially Governments–to do everything in their power to try to resolve the conflict and bring the violence to an end. Given that I say that, and note that throughout those 25 years 20,000 troops and 12,000 armed policemen on our streets and stringent security laws have not brought that peace; given that I take the responsibility, which is indeed mine, in circumstances in which I saw a real opportunity–and I mean my words–for achieving a total cessation of violence, which I say is the best opportunity that I have seen in 20 years; and given that the Prime Minister describes me in his statement as courageous and imaginative, why has the right hon. Gentleman rejected my proposals before he has talked to me about them?

The Prime Minister: I think that millions will agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about Greysteel and Shankill. Nothing can justify the sort of action that we saw in Greysteel. As I indicated over the weekend, revenge simply breeds revenge–each death leads to another death–and that is no way forward for Northern Ireland.

May I repeat what I said in the statement? I have a great deal of admiration for the persistence and the courage with which the hon. Gentleman has, through many years, pursued a settlement in Northern Ireland. I have not always agreed with the way in which he has pursued that end, but I have always admired his courage and his determination to do so.

I have to make a judgment as to whether the actions that are taken will lead to the consent throughout every aspect of the community that is the irrevocable necessity if one is to have a settlement that will endure for a long period. I listened very carefully to what the Taoiseach had to say. The hon. Gentleman and I met some time ago. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has asked to see me again. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that I am happy to meet him and I look forward to doing so, and to meeting also the leaders of the other constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. My door to them is open for constructive help towards reaching a settlement, from whatever source–any democratic source–it may come.

But I had to make a judgment on whether I thought that the proposals reached by the hon. Gentleman, at this time, and in the fashion that he proposed them, would actually lead to progress and to a settlement. I reached the conclusion–after having been informed of them by the Taoiseach, as we said in our statement over the weekend–that that was not the right way to proceed, and for that reason I said earlier today that I believe the way forward is the way set out in the joint statement that the Taoiseach and I issued on Friday.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North): I should like to associate myself with what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said in condemning without reservation all the murders that have been taking place in our land. There is no difference between the tears of Protestants and the tears of Roman Catholics. These murders come from hell and lead to hell and there can be no justification for them on any grounds whatever.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Northern Ireland will be listening carefully to what he is saying today? As he said in his statement that the document resulting from the Hume-Adams talks, as they are called, was not delivered to him but that the Taoiseach made some comments upon it, can he tell the House and the people of Northern Ireland what detail of that document led him to reject it? This House and the people of Northern Ireland should know that. May I also tell the right hon. Gentleman that many people in Northern Ireland are alarmed by the communique that was issued, especially point 5:

“The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach agreed that any initiative can be taken only by the two governments”?

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the people of Northern Ireland what difference there is between that and joint sovereignty? Surely the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman as Prime Minister, are the only people who can take an initiative in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister also told the House today that, when the time is ripe, there is going to be a change in the constitution of the South. The people of Northern Ireland will be asking the Prime Minister, now many more Shankill roads and Greysteels must we have to bring about the ripening of the time?

The Prime Minister: To an extent, the hon. Gentleman answered part of his own question in the second part of his question. We need a settlement that will last. I do not think that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), any more than I or any hon. Member, is simply looking for a short-term ceasefire. We are looking for a permanent cessation of violence. That is what we are seeking. That means that some of the action–for example, the action that will bring comfort in the North on articles 2 and 3–must necessarily be taken by the Government of the Republic of Ireland and not by us. It is right that we should work together to see whether we can produce peace in Northern Ireland.

So far as the document is concerned, I reiterate that I have not read it. Having spoken to the Taoiseach, I am aware of the document’s contents. As I said to the hon. Member for Foyle, I made the judgment, on the basis of that, that I did not think that it would lead to consent across Ireland and should not therefore be proceeded with in the form in which it existed.

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East): The horrific assault at Greysteel in my constituency on Saturday night has rightly drawn down the universal condemnation of all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland and their public representatives. May I say to the Prime Minister that the people in the area were very glad to see the Secretary of State paying a visit there yesterday. He was very much welcomed.

That atrocious attack spoke louder than words. Did the Prime Minister therefore ask Mr. Reynolds to close down places like the Republican News Bureau in Dublin, from which all the statements by the IRA are issued?

Will the right hon. Gentleman now give the most careful attention to selective detention, to behead the terrorist organisations of their control and command structures? Before he starts that, will he read the excellent article that appeared in the Irish edition of The Sunday Times yesterday on that subject, which unfortunately was not printed in the British editions? That article will clarify everyone’s thinking. Does the Prime Minister also agree that swift and vigorous action is now necessary to restore confidence and to get rid of the massive fear that exists throughout Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: The slaughter of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Greysteel was unforgivable. I hope that he will understand and pass to his constituents the depth of sympathy that exists in this House and across the country for the people who suffered in that attack and for their families.

We are in constant contact with the Government of the Republic of Ireland about security matters. There have been substantial improvements in security co-operation and cross-border co-operation over recent years. That is a continuing programme. It is not something that is begun and ended. A whole range of matters are continually under discussion.

As for selective detention, I have noted the public debate on the arguments for and against internment. This is, of course, an option which remains open to the Government. It would not, I think, at the moment be appropriate for me to comment on the circumstances in which that option might necessarily be used. It is there, and I do not rule it out.

Sir James Kilfedder (North Down): I associate myself wholeheartedly with the political initiative by the Prime Minister. With the Irish Republic’s acceptance, if such be the case, that there can be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority there, and the promised removal, if such be the case, of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, it would seem sensible and desirable that the talks between the constitutional parties should be resumed as soon as possible. Does my right hon. Friend agree that every public representative in Northern Ireland should now call upon the people unequivocally to support the security forces in their fight to defeat terrorism, which presents a bar to political progress?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend upon that issue. The Taoiseach has indicated acceptance of the principle of consent in Northern Ireland on the constitutional guarantee, and the Deputy Prime Minister in Ireland, of course, has indicated the possibility of putting a referendum on articles 2 and 3 to the people in the Republic.

My hon. Friend is entirely right about the need for the security forces to have the complete support of the people and of the leaders in Northern Ireland. There must be within Northern Ireland people who have information about those who have taken part in terrorist activities over recent weeks. I would appeal to those people to come forward with that information. It requires an act of bravery to do so, but that bravery, if they do so today, may prevent more slaughter, mayhem, death and misery for other families at a later stage.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Is it not rather disappointing, to say the least, that the reaction of many Unionist politicians over the weekend to the constructive proposals that were put forward by the Irish Foreign Minister was to dismiss them as simply blarney? If agreement could be reached between the two Governments which accepts, of course, that the majority of the people in Northern Ireland have a right to stay in the Union but also makes other proposals leading to power-sharing in the North, would the Prime Minister carefully consider having a referendum in the United Kingdom as a whole? Although there might be a referendum in the Republic, the people of the United Kingdom could have an opportunity of deciding on those proposals prior to any parliamentary approval. Would not that be one way forward to overcome any veto by politicians in the North?

The Prime Minister: I am not at all sure that it would be helpful to making progress to comment on every aspect of what the hon. Gentleman says, although I understand what compels him to say it. Perhaps I could make this point, which is relevant to the position in Northern Ireland : for too long the concerns of many people in Northern Ireland have been dominated by fears–some rational, some irrational–at each extreme of debate. What I think we have to do, if we are to work with the constitutional leaders in Northern Ireland to provide a settlement, is to try to offer the guarantees and certainties that will ensure that the extreme views that are so often put do not carry favour with the majority of people in Northern Ireland.

Once those fears and uncertainties are put to rest, I believe that we will have a much better climate in which we can work with all the constitutional leaders in Northern Ireland and try to promote a settlement that will end the bloodshed. Therefore, the way ahead that we proposed is the right one, although I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): Has any estimate been made of the expenditure involved in the many bodies that were set up at the Council meeting? Although I agree very much indeed with what the Prime Minister said about economic policy, does he accept that the best that we can now do in the House of Commons is to wish him well, observing that the European union requires that the broad outlines and guidance of economic policy will now be determined by the Council by majority vote under article 103, which applies to us as well as to other member states?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, those are guidelines, and they were negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and myself in the Maastricht negotiations some time ago. On the substantive matter of the European union, the European union gives rise to a good deal of misunderstanding among people. It simply consists of the so-called three pillars–the European Community plus the arrangements for intergovernmental co-operation–I emphasise the word “co-operation”–in foreign and home affairs. “Union” is a way of describing that three-pronged structure, and it is nothing more than that. I cannot immediately give my hon. Friend, off the cuff, the costs of those new institutions. Many of the institutions were agreed in principle many years ago, and there has been a delay in establishing them until the matter of sites was concluded. My hon. Friend will agree, for example, to take but one illustration, that the advantage of establishing Europol, if it is successful in dealing with drugs and crime money, is expenditure that, for all the people of Europe, will be seen as well worth while.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be great disappointment that he has rejected the proposals which my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has been discussing? Given that Mandela was convicted of terrorism and has just won a Nobel prize, that Arafat was once refused permission to enter America and has now entered into meaningful discussions with the Israeli Government, and that David Owen is in Yugoslavia talking with men associated with violence, is it not time to look at the proposal put forward by the Irish Government 25 years ago, that the United Nations might send a mediator who would be able to talk to everybody in Ireland? The Prime Minister’s refusal to have talks with everybody is now an obstacle to a peaceful settlement.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman’s implication is that he would talk to men engaged in violence. That is not a position that I or the leaders of any of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland hold. It may be the right hon. Gentleman’s view, but in a democracy such as the United Kingdom, that is not the way to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman speaks almost for himself

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): No.

The Prime Minister: Well, for himself and perhaps the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)–not together a weighty crowd. I respect and admire the efforts of the hon. Member for Foyle–I mean that; I am not saying it as a matter of form but it is my view and that of the Irish Prime Minister that we cannot proceed with those proposals.

Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham): As to the European Commission’s White Paper on growth and unemployment, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government’s opinion is that economic growth cannot be obtained by increasing public spending, still less by raising taxes? Will he further confirm that the best way to achieve economic growth is to cut European bureaucracy and arrive at a successful conclusion of the Uruguay round? Will my right hon. Friend say what success Mr. Delors and the Commission are having with the French on the latter matter?

The Prime Minister: There was complete agreement at the Council that we need a satisfactory settlement of the Uruguay round by 15 December. There was no suggestion by any participating state that that was not a desirable goal. I hope that progress is being made in dealing with the particular difficulties of agriculture in France. There are difficulties in concluding the Uruguay round with other countries beyond the European Community.

My right hon. Friend’s points about economic development are entirely mine, and I would not wish to add to them. He makes the point that it is supply side changes that will lead to further growth and more jobs in Europe, not an excess of centrally funded expenditure.

Dr. Joe Hendron (Belfast, West): I join all other hon. Members in condemning the massacre in Greysteel, and the UFF/UDA. I hope and pray that the young policeman shot by the Provisional IRA in Newry makes a speedy recovery.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, as long as murderers are stalking the streets of Northern Ireland, especially in west and north Belfast, people are living in terrible fear? It ill behoves anyone to criticise those who are trying to end murder. I do not wish to make political points about articles 2 and 3 or Select Committees; I am asking the House how we can end murder and slaughter on our streets. Of the 23 people murdered in the past eight days, 12 have come from the edge of west Belfast, the Shankhill road, or from the centre of my constituency, Kennedy way.

My friend and colleague the hon. Member for Foyle has made courageous efforts to try to end the violence and the existence of one of the killing machines. Bearing that in mind, will the Prime Minister use his close relationship with the Official Unionist party to persuade its Members of Parliament and colleagues in local government to speak directly to the UFF, the UDA and the Democratic Unionist party, to try to persuade them to end their terrible campaign of violence?

The Prime Minister: I have to say that I doubt whether the constitutional politicians of Northern Ireland have any authority over these murdering butchers. That is undoubtedly the case, whether those murdering butchers are members of the UFF or the IRA. We are dealing with people who are beyond the pale of civilised behaviour, and it does not lie within the remit of any hon. Member to be able to talk them out of their behaviour. I wish it were the case that hon. Members could, but events of recent years have shown that they cannot.

The hon. Gentleman may have implied that I was critical of his hon. Friend the Member for Foyle. As I said earlier, I am not, and I am happy to reiterate that. The fact that I have chosen, for the reasons that I have set out, to say that we cannot take his hon. Friend’s proposals further in their present form does not imply a criticism of his hon. Friend’s activities or his courage in recent years. I happily make that point plain again.

How are we to deal, asks the hon. Gentleman, with the fear that exists on the streets of west Belfast and elsewhere? The answer is to continue to give the fullest possible support to the security forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Against the sombre background of the murders committed in the past few days, we should not lose sight of the many achievements of the security forces in recent months. This year, some 50 people have been charged with murder or attempted murder, 3,600 kg of explosives have been recovered–more than twice as much as in the comparable period in the previous year–and 164 firearms and 42 rockets and mortar launchers have also been recovered. Many attempted attacks have also been prevented. Three such attempts have been intercepted in the past three weeks, and six people have been charged as a result.

The security forces are always in the light of public criticism when events of the type that we have seen in recent days occur, but we should also recall their many successes, not all of which can be made public.

Sir Michael Grylls (Surrey, North-West): Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people in the country would recognise that he took exactly the right line at the European summit when he insisted on dealing with practical issues such as competitiveness rather than airy-fairy dreams for the next century? In that respect, would my right hon. Friend also agree that, since Britain and America have been far more successful in creating new jobs in recent years than continental Europe, he should continue to use his influence to press the other EC countries to lighten the burden on business–for example, by removing red tape, as he said earlier? That burden should be lifted particularly from small and medium-sized firms, because they will create the new jobs that we all want to see in Europe.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. That is why we took the initiative to help small and medium-sized companies with extra resources from the European investment fund. It is a fact that, if the Community had been as successful in the past 14 years in creating jobs as other countries in the OECD have been, we might have 9 million fewer unemployed in the Community.

It is also the case that, in the past 20 years, the Community’s relative share of world trade has reduced. Part of that reduction was entirely to be expected as countries in the Pacific basin in particular began to industrialise, but the loss in the share of world trade implies a significant lack of relative competitiveness. That is a problem that we need to address.

It is a striking statistic–one that I have used before, but it is worth repeating again–that, given the same growth in the past 20 years, the United States has created four jobs for every single job created throughout the European Community.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West): Would the Prime Minister remind supporters of internment that its reintroduction would almost certainly be counter-productive, because the last time it was tried, it turned out to be an effective recruiting sergeant for the paramilitaries, and the violence went from bad to worse?

Does the Prime Minister agree that the best way in which to proceed in the quest for peace would be to invite all the interested parties to a constitutional conference and to make it absolutely clear, right at the outset, that, if a party or parties boycotted those talks, they would nevertheless proceed, with a view to finding a just and peaceful solution to end the appalling bloodshed?

The Prime Minister: I set out my views on internment a few moments ago, and I have nothing to add. There are many lessons to be learned from experiences on previous occasions. Simply to call a constitutional conference with great hopes built up for it and then to see it fail may not be the most practical way forward. What is right, which is implicit in the hon. Gentleman’s question, is that we should continue discussions to find the maximum amount of agreement that exists between the constitutional parties, and then focus on the areas of disagreement and see how we can eliminate them. That is the intention of the talks that are proceeding, whether one calls them an intergovernmental conference or a constitutional conference. What is sought from them is what the hon. Gentleman was seeking with his proposal.

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): Continuing with the question of Northern Ireland, does my right hon. Friend agree that constitutional uncertainty has been and remains a breeding ground for terrorism in Northern Ireland ? Does he further agree that Northern Ireland, de facto and de jure, is part of the United Kingdom because that is the democratically expressed wish of the people of Northern Ireland; and that, important though the search is for a political formula, it is equally important to assure the people of Northern Ireland and of Great Britain who has experienced terrorist outrage that the security response is commensurate with the increased threat of terrorism?

The Prime Minister: We must certainly ensure that the security response is commensurate with the increase in terrorism, and we remain in close touch with the General Officer Commanding British forces and, of course, with the leaders of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As chairman of the Back-Bench committee on Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend speaks with considerable authority of the difficulties that he sees in Northern Ireland. I confirm his observation that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and that, under the constitutional guarantee, it will remain so until and unless a contrary view is taken by the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South): May I bring the Prime Minister back to the question of Northern Ireland and hope that I get an answer from him today? In answer to one question, the Prime Minister said that he still favours a three-strand approach. Does he accept the position that was adopted by predecessor some time ago–that there can be no agreement on any especial strand until there is agreement on all three?

The Prime Minister: The answer to that question is yes.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): Would my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Government of the Republic of Ireland are as committed to war against the IRA as Her Majesty’s Government, that offers an opportunity for the IRA and Sinn Fein to be proscribed in both countries, so that a proper military offensive can be conducted against them? Would not that mean that there would be no hiding place at all for them on the island of Ireland, and that, although it maybe a rather sombre assessment, it is likely to be more realistic than the courageous efforts by the hon. Member for Foyle, which would require us to sit at a bargaining table with terrorists?

The Prime Minister: We remain in close consultation with the security forces in the Republic of Ireland, and that will continue. It is improving all the time, and I expect it to continue to improve; I would not wish to go further than that on this occasion.

Ms Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): I welcome the Prime Minister’s call for constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to get round the table as quickly as possible. Does he agree that there is a huge democratic deficit in how we govern Northern Ireland at present, and that, while it is part of the United Kingdom, we should surely treat it in the same way as we treat other parts of the United Kingdom? Some hon. Members greatly support the setting up of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland. Did he discuss that with the Taoiseach? Did he have any views and if he did, what was the Prime Minister’s response to his views?

The Prime Minister: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Lady has said. I did not discuss the setting up of a Select Committee of this House with the Head of Government of the Republic of Ireland. That is a matter for the House. I certainly did not discuss it. It is a matter to be considered by the Procedure Committee. I understand that the Committee is examining it, and in due course, we shall consider any report that it may produce.

The hon. Lady is entirely right about a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland ; there is a democratic deficit. It is precisely because we strongly share her views on that that we wish to make progress in the talks so that we can devolve a proper system of local government–an enhancement of democracy for local politicians in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the murderers need to be limited in their physical capability? It needs to be made clear to those on both sides that the violence and the killing will bring no advantage to them. It is important to go on working so that their supporters put pressure on them to reduce their capability. May I sum up by saying that each part of the community must protect the other just as much as it tries to protect itself? Is not that a welcome small silver lining in the ghastly cloud hanging over Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: It is. One of the horrific ironies of the murders in Greysteel the other day is that members of both the Protestant and Roman Catholic communities were murdered in the attack. My hon. Friend is entirely right about that.

On my hon. Friend’s first point, I can give a categorical assurance that there is no way in which the continued murdering and killing by anyone, whether from the Protestant side or from the Catholic side, will affect the Government’s policies and it will not gain anyone anything in terms of democratic advantage.

Mr. Skinner: Is not the Prime Minister aware that when he speaks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about dealing with terrorists, the people outside Parliament understand only too well that the Government have dealt with terrorists over the decades? They are dealing now with the Chinese Government who were responsible for the massacre in Tiananmen square only a few years ago.

Will the Prime Minister understand that, if we are to follow the success of the Arafat-Rabin talks, we must have talks not in the Irish Republic or in Britain, but in a neutral country? The way to get things off the ground is not to deal with the Conservative Government, who are in league with the Ulster Unionists who deliver them votes in the House of Commons, or with those in the Irish Republic, but to start the process in a neutral country. Such a policy resulted in success in the middle east, and that is the only way in which success can be achieved now.

The Prime Minister: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is very lucid, and as almost ever, he is entirely wrong. If the implication of his remarks is that we should sit down and talk with Mr. Adams and the Provisional IRA, I can say only that that would turn my stomach and those of most hon. Members; we will not do it. If and when there is a total ending of violence, and if and when that ending of violence is established for a significant time, we shall talk to all the constitutional parties that have people elected in their names. I will not talk to people who murder indiscriminately.

Mr. David Faber (Westbury): In the course of his discussions on Bosnia, was my right hon. Friend able to bring to the attention of his European counterparts the remarks last week of the senior British officer in Bosnia, Brigadier Angus Ramsay, who described Croat soldiers as “scum”? Given the appalling atrocities that continue to be carried out by regular Croat army troops in Bosnia, was my right hon. Friend able to make any progress towards the long overdue sanctions against Croatia?

The Prime Minister: The question of further sanctions anywhere in the former Yugoslavia did not come up in the discussions. It did not come up in the discussions between the Heads of Government. To the best of my knowledge–unless I am corrected by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary–the question did not come up in the parallel discussions at Foreign Minister level.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian): Everyone in Britain and in the island of Ireland desperately wants progress towards peace and a settlement in Northern Ireland. Is the Prime Minister aware that people find it difficult to understand why someone holding the office of Prime Minister in Britain is nit-picking about the proposals by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, which he apparently has not even seen yet? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not allow his dependence on Ulster Unionist votes in the House to obstruct progress?

The Prime Minister: I would have thought that, even by the standards of the hon. Gentleman, that was rather cheap. Let me remind him that the position that I took on the initiative of the hon. Member for Foyle was taken also by the Taoiseach, who is not a Member of the House and is not dependent on the votes of any Member of the House. As I said earlier, there are no special agreements or deals with any other parties in the House. That has been stated by me and by others. The hon. Gentleman may smirk like a juvenile, but he falls well below the level of events with that sort of remark.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher): Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do not need to be defensive about the creation of the European union as of today, because it underlines the fact that the progress in the Europe of tomorrow will be on an intergovernmental basis and not just on a better defined set of Community institutions?

Will my right hon. Friend put maximum emphasis also on the workings of the European Monetary Institute? Even if this country does not want to be part of a single currency, it is vital that we encourage the convergence criteria within the European Community so that we can benefit from the stability that will emerge. It is vital also that we underline the importance of the single market, because if that were ever questioned, through currency instability, jobs in this country would be at threat.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Co-operation by consensus, by universal agreement across the Community, is a sensible way of progressing whenever it is appropriate. That is what happens under the three-pillared approach that was agreed in the Maastricht treaty. It is not a question of compulsion; it is a question of agreement. Where that agreement can be reached, we are stronger collectively and individually.

As far as the convergence criteria are concerned, they occasionally raise the hackles of some hon. Members, but the reality is that the convergence criteria are precisely the sort of sound economic policies that some of those who oppose them under the European label urge on me in other circumstances. The reality is that they are nothing more or nothing less than sound economic management.

Several hon. Members rose–

Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

November 1, 1993
PMQT – 28 October 1993

Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th October 1993.

PRIME MINISTER:

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Shersby : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.

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

Mr. Shersby : As a result of my right hon. Friend’s discussions today, does he agree that the fight against crime calls for a partnership between the Government, the police and the people? Will my right hon. Friend’s Administration do all in their power to raise the morale of the police so that the police can do more effectively the difficult job of protecting the lives and property of every citizen of our country?

The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend is quite right to talk about the importance of police morale and the need to form a partnership between the police, the Government and the public in tackling crime. Nothing does police morale or public morale more harm than to see criminals uncaught or unpunished. I give my hon. Friend a complete assurance that crime will remain at the centre of our concerns in the months and years ahead.

Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is really the case that, after accepting an amendment that British Rail should be allowed to bid for rail franchises, the Government now intend to table further amendments which will remove that right if there are any other bids? How can the right hon. Gentleman justify such a blatant and discreditable manoeuvre?

The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to wait and have a look at the amendments which my right hon. Friend will table this afternoon. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be wise to wait and see.

Mr. Smith : Will the Prime Minister deal with the clear point of principle? If British Rail put in a bid for a franchise and that was clearly the best offer, why should that be knocked out in favour of a worse offer from a competitor? What is the justification for that in terms of the taxpayer or traveller?

The Prime Minister : I advised the right hon. and learned Gentleman to wait, and he might have been rather wiser to have done so. The Government accept that there might be circumstances in which it might be appropriate for British Rail to be a franchisee. However, we remain of the view that it would not be right to treat British Rail in the same way as other potential franchisees and that measures for this provision should be made in relation to British Rail’s role in the franchising process.

Mr. Smith : Is not the Prime Minister revealing that the Government are accepting an amendment and then seeking to nullify it? Instead of those cynical tricks, would not it be better to take this legislation away altogether, because 80 per cent. of the British public know that rail privatisation means higher fares and fewer services? It is a rotten deal for taxpayer and traveller.

The Prime Minister : It is precisely to produce a better deal for taxpayers and travellers that we are bringing in private sector skills to ensure that British Rail is run more efficiently. The Labour party on this, as on other issues, really needs to make up its mind. The right hon. and learned Gentleman effectively accuses us of making sham concessions. [Interruption.] Yes, oh splendid. In that case, his hon. Friend who speaks for his party said that it was a U-turn. It cannot be both.

Q2. Sir Anthony Durant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.

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

Sir Anthony Durant : My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be aware of the two bombs that were put in Reading station last weekend. Will he pass on, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, the grateful thanks of the people of Reading for the fact that the railway police, the Army and the railway staff defused that bomb, which would have caused major damage and loss of life? Will he, therefore, as Prime Minister, take tough action against those vicious terrorists?

The Prime Minister : I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Army, the police, the emergency services and the staff of British Rail for the magnificent way in which they dealt with the incidents at the weekend. I believe that they deserve the utmost thanks and the terrorists will achieve nothing whatsoever from those crimes of violence. Their readiness to kill and their readiness to inflict injury will merely reinforce the Government’s determination and, I hope, the determination of everyone in the House to ensure that they gain nothing whatsover now or in the future from their actions.

Mr. Faulds : Does the Prime Minister recall that he gained considerable international kudos when he mounted the initiative to safeguard or to try to safeguard the Kurds in northern Iraq? Now that his Government and other European Governments have so abysmally failed the Bosnian Muslims, would he perhaps restore his credibility, even only fractionally, were he to launch an initiative to try to safeguard the Marsh Arabs–the Shi’ias–in southern Iraq, an issue which the Prince of Wales raised in his admirable speech to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies yesterday?

The Prime Minister : I do not accept for one second the hon. Gentleman’s strictures on helping the Bosnians, in particular the Bosnian Muslims. There is no country in Europe or beyond that has such a proud record of humanitarian assistance over the past two years. It would be more graceful of the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that fact. I fully share the concerns expressed by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales about the draining of the marshes in southern Iraq. It is a matter on which the Government have spoken before. We and the Security Council have repeatedly condemned repression of the Shi’ias and have repeatedly demanded full access for the United Nations. That, we believe, is the right way for us to continue in this matter. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we do not regard this as a light matter to be casually pushed aside. We will continue to pursue it in the right way and in the right place, and that is the United Nations.

Q3. Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.

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

Mr. Atkinson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with social security abuse and fraud costing our constituents many billions of pounds a year, they will welcome the introduction of an identity card scheme, which will do nothing to threaten civil liberty but do much to support and encourage individual freedom and responsibility?

The Prime Minister : I know that my hon. Friend speaks for many people, and I share whole-heartedly his wish to stamp out social security fraud. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is looking at a range of options to step up the fight against fraud, and as part of that he is looking at the practicalities of the introduction of an identity card scheme. Frankly, I find the principle of such a scheme to be attractive, but there are many practical difficulties to be overcome.

Q.4 Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.

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

Mr. Mitchell : It looks very much as though the Government are not reducing interest rates because they are covertly shadowing the deutschmark once again. At the same time, other European Governments are saying that Maastricht is not dead, that the exchange rate mechanism should be reconstituted and that the timetable for monetary union can and should be followed. In other words, we are probably in for Europe’s biggest ever outburst of necrophilia. What will the Prime Minister be saying about stage 2 of monetary union and about the burdens, the timetables and the obligations that it imposes?

The Prime Minister : I commend to the hon. Gentleman an excellent article he may have seen in The Economist not very long ago which set out clearly the way in which the Government will proceed in terms of the future of our policy in Europe. Stage 2 of economic and monetary union involves no infringement whatever of sovereignty over monetary affairs. It is fixed in the international treaty and it is fixed in our legislation. But it does not mean that we proceed to stage 3 and it does not infringe in any way our own monetary sovereignty.

Q5. Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.

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

Sir Peter Tapsell : May I join its author in congratulating the writer of the article in The Economist on 25 September, which set out clearly and in a masterly fashion the traditional policy of the British Government towards the European Community? May I express to my right hon. Friend the belief that almost the whole of the Conservative parliamentary party and, indeed, the British electorate will be able to unite behind his total rejection in that article of economic and monetary union, a single European currency and a united states of Europe? Will he repeat the points he made in that article in forceful terms to the 11 Heads of Government whom he will meet in Brussels tomorrow?

The Prime Minister : I rather fancy that the other Heads of Government noticed what I wrote while on holiday in Portugal, which was subsequently printed in The Economist article, so they will be in no doubt about the Government’s position. As appropriate, I will re-endorse it tomorrow and on other occasions.

Mr. Purchase : The Governor of the Bank of England has made it perfectly clear that he regards zero inflation as the overriding goal of economic policy. Has the Prime Minister made an assessment of the effects of such a policy on unemployment and growth?

The Prime Minister : I made clear to the House well over three years ago how important I regarded ensuring that we got inflation down to the lowest possible level. No one has ever been in any doubt about the determination of the Government to achieve that. We have achieved it. We have inflation now at a lower level than we have seen for 30-odd years. We have interest rates at a lower level than we have seen for a very long time. They are the essential prerequisites to sustainable growth over the medium and long term.

Q6. Mr. Bates : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.

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

Mr. Bates : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement made by Nissan yesterday of a £26 million expansion to its car plant at Sunderland? Does he agree that that investment will further strengthen the manufacturing base of the north-east and that it is a substantial vote of confidence in favour of the work force in Sunderland and in the strength of the British-led economic recovery?

The Prime Minister : It is certainly a substantial vote of confidence in the work force at Sunderland, and I am absolutely delighted at this increased investment by Nissan. I have to make the point that if we had followed policies that piled on employers social costs such as the minimum wage and the social contract, I strongly suspect that that investment would not have come to this country but would have gone elsewhere.

Mr. McGrady : In view of the grave political and security problem in Northern Ireland caused mainly by the political vacuum of the past 12 months because the Democratic Unionist party and the Conservative and Unionist party refused to attend the conference table, will the Prime Minister, in union with the Irish Government, reconvene the round table conference of all the democratic parties so that the private documents of the DUP and the official Unionist party, and the document of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), can be placed on the table? More than that, the distrust and the fears of the people of Northern Ireland can be removed by proper political dialogue and some hope for the future can be given.

As a writer, will the Prime Minister take note of the statement made in the Dail yesterday by the Tanaiste, Dick Spring, setting out six principles that all fair-minded people would regard as a fair basis of political progress in Ireland as a whole?

The Prime Minister : It is precisely to ensure that we get a proper political process and the return of constitutional rights to the people of Northern Ireland that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has been pursuing with such skill and vigour–as did his predecessor- -the three-stranded approach in Northern Ireland. I saw with great interest the remarks of the Tanaiste yesterday and I hope to have the opportunity of discussing them with the Taoiseach tomorrow.

Q7. Mr. Fabricant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 October.

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

Mr. Fabricant : My right hon. Friend will be aware of my love of motor biking. Can he imagine the distress that I felt when some years ago I motor biked across Europe and had to do so on a Yamaha–a Japanese motor bike? Will he join me in congratulating Triumph on producing more motor bikes in the large motor bike league than either Suzuki, BMW or Harley Davidson?

The Prime Minister : I was delighted to see the success of Triumph and I hope that my hon. friend will soon be again riding a Triumph motor cycle across Europe, and perhaps elsewhere.

October 28, 1993
Mr Major’s Speech in Kuala Lumpur – 21 September 1993

Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday 21st September 1993.

PRIME MINISTER:

Prime Minister, Mrs Mahatir, Honourable Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen.

I think I speak for everyone this evening, Prime Minister, in thanking you for your hospitality here this evening, you are very kindly entertaining us this evening and it is an evening, I know, that many of us have looked forward to for a very long time. I do not propose to repay your kind hospitality by an over lengthy speech, but I will try to respond to some of the points you have made and make one or two other points that seem to me of importance in our bilateral relationship.

You spoke a few moments ago in your remarks about the Uruguay Round about the vital importance of achieving a satisfactory settlement of the world trade talks. The United Kingdom have taken the view from the outset: that if we are to see the re-engendering of confidence in the world trade outlook there is no single event more likely to produce it than the widening of free trade and a satisfactory conclusion of the Uruguay Round.

That is the position we have firmly and consistently maintained within the European Community and I know there have been some concerns over the difficulties between the United States and the European countries on the subject of agriculture. I think the meeting that concluded not all that many hours ago in Brussels has made it perfectly clear that the Blair House accords cannot be reopened, the Community negotiators are now going to return unfettered to continue their negotiations and I believe we remain on track for a satisfactory outcome to the Uruguay Round by 15 December this year.

The prize of success in that round is very great but I think it has to be recognised by every participant in the round, from whatever part of the world that they come from, that the price of failure in that round would also potentially be very great indeed. It is in no-one’s interest to see that failure, no-one’s interest to see free trade begin to shrivel, no-one’s interest to see the dangers of protection and retaliation, all of which potentially could occur if we did not have a satisfactory outcome to the Uruguay Round. I can give you a total assurance about the position that the United Kingdom will adopt.

Prime Minister, you also mentioned the very distressing problem of Bosnia, a problem I think that has touched the heart, I know, of Malaysia and has touched the heart of my country as well. I would say to you, Prime Minister, that I and my Cabinet feel as strongly about the wickedness and the intolerance that we see daily in Bosnia, and have for some time, as anyone else. We have taken over the last year or so a whole range of practical steps to assist that on many occasions have led, not just the West, but I think the whole world in the actions we have taken. We sent at a very early stage, before I think anyone else, a substantial number of British troops to Bosnia to make sure that the humanitarian aid was securely delivered. I think it is fair to say that if we had not taken that action a year or so ago there are many tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Bosnians alive today who would not have been alive but for the voluntary aid effort and the activities of the British troops there.

We are seeking, by the convening of the London Conference, a satisfactory outcome that is not going to lead just to a short term cessation of fighting followed by a reignition of the conflict at a later stage, it is with the intention of avoiding the misery that would follow that outcome that we have been so determined to try and seek a satisfactory political settlement.

We have looked repeatedly at what action can be taken bilaterally with the United Kingdom and Bosnia, multilaterally with our partners in the Community, and on a wider sphere through the United Nations and others, and I am delighted at the fact that Malaysia will also be sending a contingent to join us in the United Nations protection forces. I look forward to discussing this problem with you further in our discussions tomorrow.

It seems to me this evening a long time since I first came to Malaysia. It was indeed in the early 1970s and I recall it very vividly. I remember visiting – though I can’t recall precisely where it was – a fish restaurant at a lakeside that had a remarkable marketing appeal; you ordered your fish, you sat there and they rowed out on the lake and they caught it. It had a strong marketing appeal for this reason: you ordered your fish, you then waited and you became very hungry; By the time the fish arrived, you really enjoyed it and after you had eaten it, by golly, you told everyone how good that meal was and I am unsurprised that that restaurant was packed out month after month after month.

Later I came as Foreign Minister to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Tonight, I come for the first time as Prime Minister for us to have some bilateral discussions here in Kuala Lumpur and I. think one thing unites those visits across now more than 20 years; it is always a pleasure to step off the plane in Kuala Lumpur, to land among friends both old and new and to be in a particularly lovely country but one thing changes, one thing is always different – from one visit to the next at a truly breathtaking speed Malaysia changes. It may be a truism to say that Malaysia is one of the most dynamic countries in the world’s fastest-growing region but the point about truisms is that they do tend to be true and this makes Malaysia an invariably exciting country to visit.

You, Prime Minister, have presided over a remarkable process of modernisation since you took the reins in 1981, a process that has seen manufacturing rise to two-thirds of your export earnings. You are well on the way to the target you set in your approach to Malaysia’s future “Vision 2020” and I look forward to seeing myself tomorrow one of the jewels in your industrial crown, the one you mentioned, the Proton car plant. I of course know its products already and I believe that the company sells more of its models in Britain than to any other country anywhere in the world.

Of course, as any visitors to the great manufacturing areas of my own country can bear witness, there is often a heavy price to be paid for industrial growth but I believe Malaysia has succeeded in modernising without losing her charm and in fact quite the reverse, you are now attracting more tourists than ever; thousands of Britons come here for pleasure as well as for business; I come, I am delighted to say, for both and many of them like Prince and Princess Michael of Kent will now be following your example by taking a ride on the Eastern and Oriental Express.

So the flow is two ways and just as Norma and I and Richard Needham, who is with us this evening, are accompanied by a team of eminent businessmen whom you have kindly invited to join you this evening, so Malaysian businessmen are ever-present and ever-welcome in the United Kingdom and so too – for you also touched upon this point – are your younger generation. We are proud and delighted that so many thousands of Malaysians are choosing to further their education and training in the United Kingdom. It gives us a unique part, I believe, to play in the building of your future and it means, I hope, that in that famous year 2020 British politicians and British businessmen will find themselves surrounded by old and good friends just as we do this evening.

I hope those young Malaysians and the British friends they are making will grow up as strong supporters of a modern Commonwealth but the Commonwealth also has changed and Malaysia has been influential in that process of change. You have just played host to the Commonwealth Forestry Conference and I understand and am unsurprised to hear that it was a very great success. In a month’s time, you and I will join over 40 other friends in the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Cyprus and five years from now Kuala Lumpur will play host to the friendliest of all international tournaments, the Commonwealth Games and yet the Commonwealth, in some curious fashion rather like the British constitution, has always been hard to define; you know it is there, you know its importance; it is not an alliance, it is not an economic community; it is not a political bloc; it is not a geographical entity. It is a good deal easier to say what the Commonwealth is not than actually to set out what the Commonwealth is and it may be baffling to outsiders but I think that you and I know the answer to that. It is above all a network of friends. What happens outside our Commonwealth meetings, be they of foresters or lawyers or finance ministers, matters as much as the proceedings within those Commonwealth meetings. You meet a colleague, you don’t need much introduction; you speak the same language metaphorically as well as literally; you know that if you have a problem some time down the road you can pick up the phone and seek his advice or seek his help. You won’t always agree – that is not necessarily a part of the Commonwealth as we both know – you won’t always have the same approach but you should always retain that indefinable element of personal friendship that is so distinctive to the Commonwealth and so difficult to find in any other international organisation.

So may I this evening very sincerely thank you for greeting us in that spirit of friendship. You don’t need me to tell you, I hope, that you and Mrs. Mahathir and all your colleagues will always be greeted in precisely the same spirit whenever you come to London. You mentioned at the outset of your remarks that relations between my country and Malaysia are in such good shape. In our discussions perhaps over dinner this evening and certainly tomorrow, I know that we will both work hard to keep them that way. It is a longstanding tradition we have, it is a tradition we cherish, it is a tradition I look forward to building upon so perhaps I may invite all your guests this evening also to join me in proposing, Prime Minister, a toast to you and Mrs. Mahathir and friendship between the United Kingdom and Malaysia.

September 21, 1993
Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with the Swedish Prime Minister – 13 August 1993

Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Swedish Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, held in Harpsund on Friday 13th August 1993.

PRIME MINISTER CARL BILDT:

Could I start by saying “Welcome!”. I have rarely seen such a distinguished and numerous collection of Swedish journalists this early in the morning so far away from Stockholm! Let me also say thanks to John and Norma Major for coming here and for making it possible to have such a nice and such a fruitful visit as I think we have had.

We have now concluded a couple of days of formal as well as informal discussions covering a rather wide range of topics. We have discussed quite extensively of course the situation in former Yugoslavia and the joint initiative that we took the day before yesterday is now from our side well under way. We are ready to go into Sarajevo at more or less a moment’s notice and we are now awaiting clearance from the UNHCR. I think the Swedish Air Force aircraft is ready at Ancona and I believe the same to be the case on the British side. It has been working can I say on the Swedish side very smoothly. I am impressed by what has been done by all of the relevant Swedish authorities at such short notice.

We also discussed developments in the process of European integration including the enlargement negotiations. We are united I think or share the same views on the need for a larger, more open, less intrusive Community in the future.

We also discussed the situation in the Baltic countries where we have issued this morning a joint statement which I guess you have seen and the highlight of that is of course that we are concerned by recent strains that we have seen in Baltic-Russian relations and we call upon all sides to deepen the political dialogue and work towards a settlement of the outstanding disputes; in particular, we ask Russia to fulfil without further delay its commitment under the CSE Helsinki Final Act to withdraw the remaining troops from the Baltic States – this must be done without linkage to other issues. We also urge Estonia and Latvia to continue to build upon the recommendations by the CSE and by the Council of Europe when it comes to developing good Community relations with the non-Estonians in Estonia and with the non-Latvians in Latvia. We also express our joint will and eagerness indeed to continue to help them in the building of true independence and in the development of good relations with the Russians. I would guess that this is also going to be a topic for the discussion that. I am going to have here tomorrow with the Foreign Minister of Russia, Mr. Kosyrev.

Let me just say it has been a very useful visit. We have, think, an outstanding bilateral relationship. If there has been one difficulty during this visit it has been how hard it is to improve upon a relationship that is already so good but we have tried and I think we have achieved some amount of success and I think that is symbolised both by the joint initiative we took on Sarajevo at the beginning of the visit and on the joint statement on the Baltics that we have done now as the visit comes to its end.

PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

Let me first thank Carl and Mia for their hospitality in Sweden; it has been not only a very worthwhile but a very enjoyable couple of days as well. Some time ago, Carl accepted an invitation to attend the Conservative Party Conference in October and I will look forward to welcoming him there in due course.

I won’t reiterate all the points that have been made thus far except simply to say that I endorse them. If I could say just a word firstly about the joint initiative on Sarajevo, we were both responding to the High Commissioner for Refugees’ plea for help for 41 seriously injured patients. That operation, both on the Swedish side and on the United Kingdom side, is now well under way, The British medical teams have now been assembled and I expect they will be flying out from Stansted to Ancona at around 4 o’clock this afternoon; they will then he in a position to transport the patients to Britain just as soon as they are ready to travel and that, of course, is a matter that is under way locally in Sarajevo. At the moment, the High Commissioner for Refugees is still assembling details both of the adult and of the child patients that they wish us to receive. I should say that the Overseas Development Association plane will also be taking out a substantial stock of antibiotics, anaesthetics and other urgently-needed drugs for the hospitals in Sarajevo.

Let me make a further point about this as well. This is by no means the end of the operation. If needed, there will be a second plane standing by to bring out more patients when the United Nations staff have fully identified those and their relatives; this may take a little longer than originally envisaged and if that is the case there will be a second plane standing by to help.

I should also make clear that the Overseas Development Association Senior Medical Assessor is currently in Zagreb but he will be in Sarajevo on Monday and will provide advice to us on what further supplies and arrangements are needed and if further medical supplies are needed, we will examine what we can do immediately to help in arranging for them to be provided.

The Prime Minister spoke of the other discussions we have had during the last couple of days; just a brief word on those, if I may.

Firstly, on European matters, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, we share the same vision of a larger, more open and less intrusive Community. We want that larger Community because it extends the area where trade will bind nations more closely together. We want that more open Community because that will mean more jobs and more prosperity for all the people within the Community. One-quarter of Britain’s and Sweden’s income comes from exports. Both Swedish entry and that of all the EFTAn countries will in my judgement help bias the Community in the future towards more openness and more free trade and I think that bias would be very welcome.

I had the opportunity yesterday morning over breakfast of meeting a very impressive group of Swedish businessmen; it was a private meeting but a very worthwhile one. There were a number of messages I took from that meeting but I think the most important one was their complete conviction about the vital importance of concluding the Uruguay Round, the trade negotiations, by the end of this year. That, as you know, is a view that I very strongly share and it is my view and I think the Prime Minister’s view as well that that should be one of the Community’s highest priorities in the next few months.

We have both spoken of a less intrusive Community. I think when the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty are in place we will be able to put more flesh on the bones of that dreadful word “subsidiarity”. That I think will be extremely helpful for everyone.

We have discussed a range of other matters, the Baltic States, the position in Russia, a number of bilateral matters as well. I won’t reiterate all the points that have already been made but would conclude on this point about Sweden’s negotiations to enter the European Community: I believe it is in Sweden’s interest to enter but I also believe it is in the Community’s interest that Sweden should enter and I very much hope those negotiations will he satisfactorily completed and everything else satisfactorily concluded for Sweden to join the Community on 1 January 1995.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

QUESTION:

Mr. Prime Minister, which stumbling blocks can you see ahead in these negotiations for Sweden in Brussels?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

I think that is a matter for the negotiators rather than me. There are always, in negotiations like this, a large number of difficult matters that need to be determined. You have of course twelve nations already members anxious to protect their national interests and Sweden quite properly will wish to protect their own vital interests when they join the Community so some of those negotiations will be quite tough, budgetary contribution clearly is one but there are a series of matters I think that are very familiar to people in Sweden. I believe all of them are capable of a solution. Negotiations will be hard but then they always are hard on occasions like this but I see no reason to suppose they can’t be satisfactorily concluded.

QUESTION:

What are the delays in putting the aircraft into Sarajevo to collect the injured people? Is it UN red tape?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

No. The delay is assembling the patients in Sarajevo and making sure they are medically ready to travel and in the case of some of them where they need relatives to travel with them, that the arrangements can be made for the relatives to travel as well. It is a logistic difficulty. There are a great many logistics to overcome in Sarajevo to get the patients together. That is the only cause of delay.

In terms of the availability of the aircraft and medical equipment, as both the Prime Minister and I have said, both on the Swedish side and on the British side that will be ready very speedily.

QUESTION:

When do you expect the injured people to arrive in Sweden and arrive in London?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

I can’t be absolutely certain about that. I hope over the weekend but I will know more about that later today I hope.

QUESTION:

Prime Minister, this statement on the Baltic States, does that reflect a fear that if the different Baltic States don’t handle relations with their Russian minorities in a sensible and democratic way you could end up with another Bosnia just over the water from Sweden?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

No, I don’t think that we believe that that is likely. What does concern us is the desirability of the Russians meeting their commitment to remove their troops out of the Baltic States as speedily and as comprehensively as possible and secondly, of course, of ensuring that the Russian citizens who will continue to live in the Baltic States are treated fairly. We know there are tensions, we know there are difficulties; what we are saying is that those need to be seriously addressed and overcome very speedily.

QUESTION:

You don’t see it as a tinder-box?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

No, I don’t see it as that sort of tinder-box, no.

QUESTION:

Do you think it is realistic for Sweden’s negotiations to be concluded by 1 January 1995?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

I do indeed. I don’t see that a longer timetable would be likely to lead to a more satisfactory conclusion. My experience of the Community over the last few years is that the best way to get an outcome is to set a deadline and I think that probably applies to other organisations as well as the Community. I am quite certain it is a realistic proposition to negotiate within that time frame and that is the view of the Community as a whole and I believe it is the view of the Swedish negotiators and the Swedish government as well.

QUESTION:

You both said you shared the vision of a more open Europe, a more open Community. I would like to ask Prime Minister Major when will Britain abolish border controls or will you ever?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

We are talking about trade when we are talking about an open Community. We have special arrangements on border controls; an island is different and I think that is generally recognised. We are talking about the desirability of open trade and I think in terms of the prosperity and growth of Europe that is very important; it is one of the reasons of course that the conclusion of the world trade talks is so very important for Europe. Europe tends to concentrate a great deal on the agricultural aspect of those trade talks but of course what is often overlooked as people do that is the very great importance to Europe of the industrial and commercial agreements that have already been reached in the Uruguay Round; they are vitally important to the future prosperity of Europe.

It is also important I think for the general development of free trade in Europe for two reasons: firstly, the jobs and prosperity point that I made a moment ago but secondly – a quite different point and perhaps a moral point in a sense – most of the European nations are relatively generous with overseas aid to less-developed and very underdeveloped countries. I think that is right and they should be but it is an oddity that on the one hand Europe is providing aid to those countries and on the other hand Europe seems to be closing its markets to exports from those countries which would leave them for ever dependent upon overseas aid. That is a second reason why there is a great imperative to open markets and free trade.

QUESTION (SAME LADY):

But does that mean that the Fourth Freedom – freedom for people – doesn’t apply for Britain?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

No, it doesn’t mean that at all.

QUESTION:

Do you accept with regard to what you said about the Baltic States that they, the Russians, have a very practical problem in providing accommodation for the troops that you want withdrawn?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

I think they have referred to that practical problem; I think there is some reason to believe there is a practical problem there. What we are saying is that it needs to be addressed and we think there can be movement on both sides, certainly assurances as to Russian minorities in the Baltic State and perhaps the Russians looking more expeditiously at removing their troops from the three states as well.

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

The practical problem, if I might add, is a rather limited one. If you see that in relation to the movement that is there of different military units around in Russia and from, say, Western Europe or from Central Asia or in and out of the Caucasus, the need to provide accommodation for the remaining troops coming out of the Baltic countries is a very very small portion so all of the practical problems there tends to be a tendency in certain Russian quarters to use that as an excuse and I don’t think that is acceptable.

QUESTION:

Prime Minister Major, you said you and Prime Minister Bildt share the vision of an open, larger and less intrusive Community but Britain has made exceptions from the Maastricht Treaty on the social dimension so don’t you share the vision of the inner organisation of the Community?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

I think you need to understand why I refused to accept the provisions of the Social Chapter. What is the greatest problem facing the whole of Western Europe at the moment? I guess most people faced with that question would say it is the need to provide jobs through growth and to increase prosperity. What we do see over the past: twenty years – and I think this illustrates the point very clearly – is that the amount of growth in Western Europe as a whole and the United States as a whole has been broadly the same but how many jobs has that created? In the United States, the same amount of growth has created four times as many extra jobs as have been created in the European Community. Why is that? The answer predominantly is the social on-costs of one sort or another that prevail in the European Community. It is not sensible to the people who are unemployed and who want jobs to introduce new provisions that will make it more difficult for them to get employment in the future.

That was the case, it is the case and that is why I have consistently opposed the provisions of the Social Chapter and still do.

QUESTION:

Have you been discussing the future of the European Monetary Union and what could be done to solve the problem?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

Well we only had two days! Others have tried for longer. We discussed present difficulties but we didn’t on this occasion advance specific solutions. It may be necessary to take some time to pause and reflect.

QUESTION:

As two Prime Ministers who both have floating currencies, do you conceive a situation where we might have to go back to, say, having the Gold Standard or some way of bringing order to the fold to increase the power of governments individually and collectively against the problems caused by all this huge amount of money which can be moved around by large investors and speculators and so on?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

That is not a matter we discussed over the last couple of days. Clearly we have to reflect upon what has happened to the Exchange Rate Mechanism. I said after Sterling left the Exchange Rate Mechanism last September that I thought there were fault-lines in the system. Many people at that stage said: “We don’t think there are fault lines in the system, it is a particular problem with Sterling!” Well now of course it is clear to everyone that there are fault-lines in the system and it was not simply a problem with Sterling. Now we need to examine what, if anything, may be done to deal with those fault-lines.

What is certainly true from the point of view of business is that stability of exchange rates, whether through successful economic management in a floating situation or through some form of management of rates, is something that business cherishes and helps the movement of goods and trade so I think the politicians must examine how best to achieve that but I don’t think I have a snap judgement to offer you on that this morning.

SAME MAN:

What about the Gold Standard?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

No, I don’t think that is likely.

QUESTION:

Mr. Major, you recently revived your proposal for a hard ECU alongside the existing currencies. Did you discuss that question and if so, what is the Swedish opinion of it?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

No, we didn’t discuss the hard Ecu and I read with some interest that I revived the suggestion. I think every country is actually looking at what series of options may exist in the future. I haven’t placed the hard Ecu back in the middle of the European debate again; it is in the European debate, it was put there some time ago but I haven’t especially floated it again; I read with some interest that I had but I haven’t.

QUESTION:

Do you think that Great Britain is moving towards a faster economic recovery right now?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

Yes. I think we are moving towards recovery. Recoveries are always patchy. You get a series of statistics that are extremely good, then occasionally you get some that are less good and think that will be the pattern of the United Kingdom recovery as well.

Over the past five months or so, the overwhelming volume of statistics have been pointing in the direction of recovery and growth of some significant size this year but rather larger next year. That seems to be the position. It is bound to be patchy. I think it is patchy but I think there is no doubt whatsoever that the United Kingdom economy is now back on the road to growth.

QUESTION:

Do you think that Carl Bildt should learn anything from your way of handling the financial problems?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

You had better ask Carl that!

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

You have to draw on the experience of all different countries. You can’t really compare the economy of one country with the economy of another country totally but I think it is very clear when you look at the figures coming out of. the British economy that among the European economies the British one is the one that clearly is in some sort of recovery and I think that is encouraging not only from the British perspective but also from the wider European perspective because we clearly need some countries to recover from the economic problems that they are having now.

We are starting to see the same signs in Sweden although we are behind. We see industrial production picking up, we see orders coming into industry. When I talk to leaders of industry now after the summer, after the vacation, when they see what is happening in the markets they are fairly encouraged with the interest rate coming down so I think that we will see Sweden developing into recovery along the lines of Britain but we are somewhat behind no doubt.

QUESTION:

Have you been discussing any kind of European strategy when it comes to solving the unemployment situation?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

The European Community discussed that at some length at Copenhagen and we are submitting proposals towards growth and how to deal with the particular present problems of Europe for a White Paper that the Community will produce later on this year. Britain is submitting her own proposals, other countries will be doing the same and I hope we will be able to discuss that in detail at the Brussels summit in December.

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

In addition to that, we are going to have a meeting of the Nordic Finance Ministers and the Nordic Prime Ministers to see what we can do from the Nordic side to join with the European initiatives that are necessary. I think it is very obvious that the economic problems that we are having throughout Europe and primarily the problems that we are having with growth and long-term employment need also European solutions. We can’t just act as nations individually; we have to pool efforts and develop joint policies and that will have to be done within the framework of the Community but not the side of the Nordic nations we are going to try to do whatever we can to join in.

QUESTION:

Mr. Prime Minister, you are also a Conservative Tory Party leader. Your Parliamentary group in the European Parliament has joined the Christian Democratic parliamentary group. How do you see this merger, and do you also consider your Tory Party both as a Conservative and a Christian Democratic party?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

My party in the United Kingdom is a Conservative Party and remains a Conservative Party.

As far as the European Community is concerned, I very much wish to see a right-of-centre European Parliament rather than a left-of-centre European Parliament and all the right-of-centre parties have joined together in a loosely-knit arrangement but it is a loosely-knit arrangement, not a marriage; it doesn’t imply complete uniformity of every aspect of policy and it doesn’t imply uniformity in any other respect as well but certainly there is a great deal of common ground between the parties and to that extent they have this loose arrangement and the Conservative members of the European Parliament have joined their other right-wing colleagues.

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

But I don’t think it is proper to say that it a purely Christian Democratic political grouping because it does include parties coming from different political traditions; they are somewhat different in the Nordic countries, in Britain, in Germany, in France. Take a country like Greece, it comes from a different tradition but joins into the European Peoples Party so it is a grouping that brings together the major forces of the centre-right in Western Europe and as such is important but you can’t put a specific ideological label to it.

QUESTION:

Yet they call themselves Union of Christian Democratic Parties.

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

No. That is another organisation. The Union of Christian Democratic Parties does exist and that only includes Christian Democratic parties. If you talk about the group in the European Parliament, the European Peoples Party group, it does include other parties as well that are not members of the Christian Democrats and I don’t think are seeking membership of that union either.

QUESTION:

Prime Minister Bildt, do you share Prime Minister Major’s opinion on the social dimension of the European Community and what importance does this have for Sweden?

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

I think it is important for Sweden that there is a social dimension to the Community in the sense that the Community also tries to develop policies to get growth back and employment and all of that; that is what is normally in the Swedish debate referred to a sort of social dimension. But we also think that broadly speaking welfare policies of different sorts should be national. I don’t see any reason why a lot of the social welfare policies that we have developed in Sweden – rightly or wrongly, we can have different points of view on those and there is a heated debate going on in the country – that they should be made into European policies. We should solve at the European level only the questions that can’t be solved on the national level and I think that most of the social policy issues are better dealt with at the local, regional or national level.

QUESTION:

What is the current state of play as you see it between the Americans and the Europeans as regards the use of military action? I think Mr. Christopher was saying the other day it is a top priority for US security to halt the advance of the Bosnian Serbs.

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

We reached an agreement, as you know, at the NAC a few days ago and that agreement stands, it remains the same.

August 13, 1993
Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Swedish Prime Minister – 12 August 1993

Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Swedish Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, held in Moja on Thursday 12th August 1993.

QUESTION:

Could I ask both Prime Ministers, what progress is there in the plans to evacuate the injured from Sarajevo?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

Progress is being made. I think if the delay is beyond 48 hours and it may be a little – it will be in gathering the families together in Sarajevo in order that they can come out with the injured. In the case of the children in particular, I think everyone will understand it is important to have their parents with them. To carry a sick child halfway across the world to a country that speaks a different language clearly you need the parents so there may be a small delay but I don’t think very long.

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

We are in constant touch with the Bosnian authorities and with UNHCR and I think we have a Swedish Air Force Hercules leaving today for the Ancona base in Italy to pick up certain equipment there and be ready and I think the British aircraft is already in the vicinity.

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

We have gathered together the medical team and the planes will be ready to leave soon.

QUESTION:

What else have you been discussing?

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

To be quite frank, we have been enjoying life and discussing the Stockholm Archipelago and that is it so far.

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

We return to work this evening.

QUESTION:

What about the Swedish application to join the European Community? Have you been discussing that and what are the views of both governments on this at the moment?

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

We have in fact been discussing that today although we had a discussion on that yesterday and we went through rather briefly some of the major items that are going to be the subject of negotiations during the autumn.

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

And we had a chance to discuss it last night over dinner as well and the British Government are very keen for Sweden to join the Community. We would like to see all the Nordic nations as part of the Community. It seems to us to be incomplete without them.

QUESTION:

Do you share the same view of the future of the European Community?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

I think we both share the view that it needs to be a free-trading and open Community and wider boundaries.

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

Yes and in the short remarks I made over dinner yesterday, I quoted Mr. Major’s phrase that: we wish a Community that is open, larger and less intrusive. I think that sums up a lot of what we are trying to achieve as well.

QUESTION:

Were you discussing the problems in the European Monetary System and do you share the same opinion about them?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

I have no doubt we will get round to those this evening.

QUESTION:

With regard to Bosnia, the US Secretary of State seems to have stiffened his stance in talking about this as a national interest to make sure that Sarajevo is sort of saved. Are we coming closer to an air strike now do you think?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

We all want to cease the hostilities not just in Sarajevo but beyond and the possibility of air strikes has existed for a considerable amount of time in support of diplomacy. The intention is to get a diplomatic settlement and of course there has always been the possibility of the use of air strikes to defend UNPROFOR troops – that has been there for a long time – United Nations troops must be protected. I think that was and is the situation.

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

Not on that subject but on a related subject, I can give the news that at the government meeting this morning we decided to call in the Royal Advisory Council on Foreign Affairs, whatever that would be in English, for Tuesday next week to take the final decision on the despatch of troops, Swedish and the Nordic contingent to UNPROFOR.

QUESTION:

Did you discuss this question with Mr. Major? Do you wish to have the British in on this?

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

Yes, I have briefed on not only the Swedish but the Nordic plans and I had contacts yesterday evening with Prime Minister Nyrup Rasmussen of Denmark and this morning with Prime Minister Brundtland of Norway to coordinate the decision-making process as well as the final military arrangements. We also discussed the wish that we have from the Nordic side to cooperate very closely with the British forces, Canadian forces and other NATO forces that are there.

QUESTION:

And what is your stance on that?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

We would very much welcome a Swedish contingent there. I very much hope they are there, they would be very welcome.

August 12, 1993
Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with the Swedish Prime Minister – 11 August 1993

Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Swedish Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, held in Stockholm on Wednesday 11th August 1993.

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

We are extremely pleased to see Prime Minister Major here; it is as a matter of fact a quarter of a century since a Prime Minister of Britain paid an official visit to Sweden.

We have now had an hour and a half of official talks covering mainly the situation in former Yugoslavia, what we jointly are trying to do there as well as different European Community matters, primarily of course the enlargement negotiations.

We have, on the question of former Yugoslavia a desperate situation in Sarajevo and Bosnia and decided in the course of the day to take a joint initiative to bring the war victims, roughly 40 of them, out of Sarajevo, half of them children. They will be going to Britain, to Sweden, a certain number to Ireland. We are ready to start the operation with our own transport aircraft within the next 48 hours in consultation with the UNHCR in Geneva and of course the government of Bosnia.

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

We spent the earlier part of our discussion, as the Prime Minister said, looking at the various problems in former Yugoslavia and the problems of enlargement in the Community; we will have the opportunity of continuing those discussions tomorrow during the day but also over a very lengthy dinner tomorrow evening so there is a great deal more to discuss bilaterally.

As the Prime Minister said, we have agreed that it in right to have a joint initiative to help the 41 seriously injured victims in Sarajevo. These discussions have been going on for a while, they have reached fruition today. What we propose is that 20 of those victims will come to the United Kingdom, 16 of them will come to Sweden and 5 of them will go to Ireland. We would expect that they would come out within 48 hours or so. The reason for the delay is the necessity of bringing the families of the sick people together so they can accompany them to the United Kingdom – there are some logistical difficulties. I would expect that we would send an air ambulance with around 25 doctors and nurses to Ancona; from there onwards, a Hercules would go into Sarajevo with some of the medical staff, bring the victims out and then bring them on to their destinations; that is certainly what we expect.

I think this is a desirable initiative but I think the point that both of us would emphasise is that that deals with the people who are seriously injured at the moment. We would hope that others would perhaps join this initiative and then make sure that in future we are able to deal more speedily and more comprehensively with people who need serious medical help and cannot get it there; I very much hope that that will happen.

We have had considerable help from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and I would also like to thank the Saudi Government who have made a very significant cash contribution towards the cost of this enterprise; I am delighted we are able to do it; I very much hope we will be able to get these sick people back where they can get proper medical treatment very speedily.

The Prime Minister and I will be happy to take any questions you may have on any of the matters we have been discussing.

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

Could I add that we are ready to send a Swedish Air Force Hercules directly down to Sarajevo tomorrow. We have also been in touch with the Swedish hospitals that have the special capabilities to be able to treat especially children that have different war wounds so we are on both sides ready to go subject to UNHCR.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

QUESTION:

Mr. Major, where are the victims going to be treated in the United Kingdom and how soon can they be got out?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

We will get them out as speedily as we can. We will certainly have the medical staff, ambulance trauma staff, the doctors and nurses there within 48 hours. As soon as we can get them out, we will take them from Sarajevo to Ancona, from Ancona back to the United Kingdom.
We have had a large number of offers of support but I would expect that all the injured will be treated in National Health Service hospitals.

QUESTION:

At Government cost?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

At Government cost.

QUESTION:

Mr. Major, why didn’t you start evacuating these people until the pictures of the little girl Irma appeared in the British media?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

We have had the largest humanitarian operation in Bosnia of any nation for a very long time; it is now very nearly a year ago since we decided to send a large number of British troops there. I think I would say to you in response that there are probably well over 100,000 people alive in Bosnia today as a result of the British humanitarian effort over recent months. I think that is a very proud record and I am delighted we were able to do it.

We have been considering what we can do for some time. The opportunity arose the other day with the little girl – we brought her out. We have now been able to extend that and I am very grateful that we have been able to do that. I hope now others will follow suit, that we will be able to cut down on some of the difficulties in getting people out and will be able to arrange a more permanent system of help for very many people.

QUESTION:

Mr. Major, is there a risk, apart from all the obvious humanitarian aspects, that this might give the wrong sort of message to the Bosnian Serbs as they encircle Sarajevo, that if they make matters bad enough the West will come in and pick up the bits?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

I don’t think the Bosnian Serbs should misread what we are doing in any way. What we are doing now is a humanitarian gesture to bring out seriously injured people who cannot get the help they need in Sarajevo, to make sure they get the medical attention they need speedily and comprehensively.

The Serbs should realise that we are determined to make sure there is a settlement to this dreadful dispute. Helping 41 people rather more I hope in the future – is very welcome but what we really need is an end to the dispute. That is why we have been pressing for the negotiations to come to a successful conclusion, it is why we put diplomatic pressure on them, it is why we have been prepared for some time under the right circumstances to engage in air strikes and we are determined to continue to put pressure on the Serbs, on the Croats and on the Muslims in different ways to try and make sure that we get a satisfactory settlement and the end of fighting.

QUESTION:

But if this did actually appear to lead to an increase in the bombardment of Sarajevo would that make you change your attitude on air strikes?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

I see no reason to suppose why that is going to be the case and I think the Serbs are very well aware that they would be very unwise to increase the bombardment of Sarajevo. I think they are in no doubt about that.

QUESTION:

Why have the EC and the UN failed to stop the war in ex-Yugoslavia?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

I think that is a question that isn’t just for us. Essentially, the difficulties in Bosnia are a civil war; that is not readily solved from outside.
Right from the outset of this conflict there have in theory been two ways to solve it: one way was to put in several hundred thousand troops on the ground and forcibly hold the combatants apart perhaps for years at tremendous cost of life and then with no certainty that the fighting would not start again the moment those troops left. The only realistic way to reach a satisfactory conclusion is the way that the West and the United Nations have chosen and that was to seek to provide humanitarian aid to limit the suffering and to seek a negotiated settlement that would end the war. I know of no other way that would have been successful.

QUESTION:

[Inaudible] but do you see air strikes on Serbian positions happening this week?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

I think you know the present position about that; that has been discussed. We have indicated that in order to reinforce the diplomacy air strikes have been a possibility for some time.

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

We have also discussed what is necessary in order to reinforce the UNPROFOR forces primarily when it comes to the implementation of safe areas and the preparations under way in the Nordic countries for the sending of a heavy Nordic battalion to the area and I hope that we will be ready to take the final steps on that in terms of decision-making in the four Nordic countries within the next few days subject to political procedures in all of the four countries.

QUESTION:

Have you suggested that the Americans should help in this action?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

In the humanitarian action no. This is not something we have discussed with the Americans on this occasion. This is an initiative Sweden and the United Kingdom have been discussing for a few days; we decided that for the time being we are able to cope with the difficulties that exist and the important thing is to do it quickly and so we have proceeded to make sure we have got the quickest possible outcome but in the future of course we would welcome help from every source in order to help with the humanitarian assistance.

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

And from our point of view you can say it is a logical extension of the effort that we have on the ground in Bosnia and in Sarajevo with medical staff there helping at the actual hospitals but what is being done now is to bring out those people, children and others, that can’t for different reasons be treated there but it should not be forgotten that a lot of countries, Sweden in the forefront, have a major effort around the hospitals and helping people on the spot in Sarajevo and the rest of Bosnia.

QUESTION:

When you talk about a permanent system of getting refugees out, how would that operate?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

That has to be discussed with the United Nations, the High Commissioner for Refugees and others but what we wish to ensure is that in future where necessary there is perhaps a speedier route to ensure people receive the medical assistance they need. I think that will be welcome. There are obvious difficulties in achieving that – don’t let me suggest to you that that is going to be readily done or easily achieved but I think we should seek to see if it can be done; I hope and believe it can.

QUESTION:

If we hadn’t witnessed the case of this little girl, can you honestly say that you would be standing here today making the same announcement?

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

I can certainly say to you that we have been looking for some time at what we can do to help the seriously injured people in Bosnia and in particular in Sarajevo, yes I can certainly say that.

PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are short of time and there will be a press conference on Friday when we can sort out the rest of the problems of the world.

August 11, 1993
Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with French Leaders – 26 July 1993

Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Balladur, made in London on Monday 26th July 1993.

PRIME MINISTER:

We have had this morning a series of discussions. I have had the opportunity this morning of discussions with President Mitterrand and the Prime Minister. During the time we have held those discussions eight of our Ministerial colleagues have been discussing their own particular areas of responsibility. At the conclusion of their discussions the whole team came together for a plenary meeting and then had the opportunity of discussing matters again over lunch.

When I became Prime Minister some time ago one of the particular objectives I had was to develop relationships between Britain and France. It seemed to me that our countries had a substantial pool of common interests, there was a great deal of scope for cooperation waiting to be tapped. I think what today’s summit shows, with a much larger participation I think than we have ever had before amongst other Ministers, is that we have travelled a very long way down that road of cooperation.

Today’s summit follows months of intensive work, Prime Minister Balladur’s visit to London in early May, my own visit to Paris at the invitation of President Mitterrand later on that month.

Let me set out in very brief terms prior to your questions some of the results of those discussions.

May I turn first to foreign policy. I think it is undeniable that we are working more closely today on international problems than ever before. We have discussed Bosnia at different meetings today, we have agreed that the key points that support the efforts of Dr Owen, and Mr Sholtenberg to reconvene the negotiations in Geneva this week. We clearly are concerned to help Sarajevo, to support UNPROFOR’ s efforts to create a ceasefire, to restore water, to restore power and to secure access for the relief convoys. We also want to sustain the humanitarian relief efforts as long as conditions permit and to accelerate the implementation of the safe areas resolution, including the provision of air support.

We discussed a number of matters relating to the European Community, including of course the joint Franco-British exercise on subsidiarity. France and Britain have now agreed a list of 24 items of Community legislation, many of them substantial, that need to be repealed, withdrawn or amended. Examples of that include tax directives on stock exchange transactions, directives on drinking water and pollution which in our judgment are much too detailed and much too prescriptive. Both our countries will also be collaborating with Germany which has drawn up a list of substantial items of its own. The aim of this work is to present the results of it, jointly, to the European Commission in the autumn as part of the preparation for the December European Council decisions.

We have had some discussions this morning also on joint defence interests. We set up last autumn the Franco/British Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy and Doctrine, the objective is to coordinate our approach to deterrence, to nuclear doctrines and concepts, anti-missile defences, arms controls and non-proliferation. We have decided today to make this Joint Commission a permanent standing body with a substantial amount of work to continue into the future.

We have looked also at joint defence projects, we reviewed collaboration in defence projects, Britain and France at the moment are working together on 21 separate projects, some of them also involving other countries as well. We have more British projects with France than with any other single international partner.

We discussed also briefly the Channel Tunnel and I am pleased to announce that Her Majesty The Queen and President Mitterrand will jointly open the Channel Tunnel on 6 May 1994.

We discussed also science and technology, we have decided to reconvene a Franco/British conference to explore fresh approaches to science policy. I think it will be a wide ranging conference, it will look at questions such as technology transfer, how to ensure that research leads to better product development and far better public explanation of scientific questions.

We also looked at the question of D-Day and its 50th anniversary. Next year is a very remarkable part of our joint history with the 50th anniversary of the D-Day landings. Britain and France are planning to commemorate this historic event in an appropriate way, there will be very substantial celebrations to commemorate that and Ministers have been appointed in both countries to supervise the preparations. Those Ministers will be meeting shortly in order that we can bring those preparations to fruition. I expect we will be able to announce details of the commemorative events in the autumn.

We have covered a range of other issues but rather than running through them in great detail I will try and pick up any points of interest to you in the question period we will have shortly.

PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

I will not add anything really to the list of issues that have been discussed, what you have heard is a very complete list and this gives you an idea of the subjects we have talked about. It will be for you to ask the questions you want to ask.

So I think it is more a question of the general spirit and atmosphere that I would like to talk about. We have had great pleasure in coming here to London and meeting our British partners and exchanging with them our positions and thinking and arguments on the problems on which we have diverging opinions and also we have been able to note that there were more and more points on which our views were the same.

In the field of foreign policy where our two countries have very long standing experience going back many many years, in Europe in particular, well there it was easy for us to reach common conclusions. On the new problems that are coming up, new in relation to this generation, in relation to history, in other words the setting up of the European Community and its consequences, its impact, its effects, and the development of world trade, on those matters we still have to define more closely our actual positions but we are delighted with the efforts that have been made successfully by the British government in order to enable the development of the Maastricht agreement. Of course each country will operate according to its own style and on the basis of the text which is the basis of the European Agreement.

What has just been said about the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of D-Day, well we all know what we owe to the United Kingdom and on the French side we will do all that should be done in order that people representing political and military spheres should meet with the warmest and the most grateful welcome possible. It is an important date, it was an important date in the relationship, as you know, which have become now very friendly relations, which became very friendly relations between our two countries at the beginning of the century.

M. BALLADUR:

At this stage I have got nothing further to add to that, thank you.

QUESTION (La Tribune):

Did you talk about the EMS this morning and has Mr Major any views on the chances of its survival and has Britain any particular interest in the EMS? On the French side, can we be told if the chances of escaping shall we say the British model with a more competitive currency at a lower rate of interest with more creation of jobs, is that likely to happen, or are the markets going to impose the same thing on France as it imposed on Great Britain last year?

PRIME MINISTER:

We certainly spent some time discussing this matter this morning and I think the statement issued this morning by France and Germany, the Franco-German statement, reaffirms support for the existing parity and close cooperation within the European Monetary System. I do not think it is in anyone’s interest to have continuing currency turbulence in Europe, it damages the prospect for economic recovery in everyone’s export markets so I hope the possible turbulence will settle down, but I have nothing further to say than that.

M. BALLADUR:

I would like to add something on that. Firstly, you asked the question in a way to elicit a certain response, I have never heard of a more competitive currency, a reference to that, what is important is that economies be competitive with one another. In France we have achieved good results on that, we are very much attached to monetary stability, we do everything we can to try and ensure it, and I note that the Prime Minister has just said that the English too want this monetary stability maintained in Europe and that they do not consider that there would be any advantage in greater instability.

QUESTION (….Liberation):

What did you discuss on GATT? How did both sides look to the future in the negotiating process on trade agreements?

PRIME MINISTER:

We had some discussions on the Uruguay Round this morning and our Agriculture and Trade Ministers also spent some time discussing it; it is clearly a matter of immense importance. All of us are agreed on the importance of the GATT Round and of a successful outcome on agriculture. We know that France has some particular difficulties with the Blair House Accord and it must be examined in more detail by the Community, hence the request for a Joint Council in September and I think in particular the constraints which Blair House would impose on internal management of the CAP, on growth in EC exports, erosion of Community preference, those are problems that France have raised and that the Community will have to discuss.

We all agreed that a durable and balanced agreement is necessary. I know in the discussion between Agriculture Ministers that Gillian Shepherd emphasised that in our view the Blair House Accord was a good one for the Community but these are matters we need to discuss. What is a matter of agreement between us is the overall desirability of a satisfactory and balanced GATT agreement.

PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

We come back to an idea which already has been expressed at least a hundred times but I think should be reiterated with strength and that is that the GATT negotiations – world trade negotiations – are not only on agriculture. I think that one of the mistakes made by people who started the discussions – I have in mind particularly our American friends – way back in 1985 was that they were totally obsessed with agriculture and that gave the impression that people wanted to get agreements which would be good agreements where it was possible for that particular country to find that beneficial leaving out areas where one might not be able to reach such favourable agreements for oneself. This was Mr. Reagan’s sign of the times – the way we interpreted it anyway. That is why France is talking about a global comprehensive agreement.

To come back to agriculture itself, the important thing is that the agreement should be a balanced agreement. You can’t have an agreement which is one-sided. If there is a compromise solution found, it must be beneficial to all the parties concerned.

Concerning Blair House, this is a point of friction naturally because we think that the agreement needs to be revised because it happened under conditions which we think questionable. In any case, the only thing that really counts is the political decision, the actual political decision taken by the countries concerned; that carries much more weight than the purely technical discussions that take place beforehand.

That is why we are quite prepared to say and repeat that an overall balanced and lasting agreement would be a good thing for international trade but it would be a bad thing if it turned out that those agreements were based on a grave injustice that we just don’t want which I think people can easily understand.

QUESTION:

Can I just add a further question? Can one say that there has been progress today on GATT?

PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

It seems to me that there has been progress on two areas, firstly I feel that we better understand one another – at least I for my part better understand the British position and secondly I think we agree and consider that a meeting of Foreign and Agricultural Ministers should be held in September which will be very important and it will be there that we will be able to discuss agriculture and the general organisation of world trade so we must prepare very actively for that meeting in September. Our British friends have agreed that that would be an important date.

QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

I wonder, in view of the reported comments in the Sunday papers this weekend, if Mr. Major could tell us how much longer he thinks he is going to be able to cohabit with some of his Cabinet and what advice the President and M. Balladur would give on cohabitation with ideological opposites. [Laughter].

PRIME MINISTER:

It seems to work very well.

QUESTION (David Langton, Bureau of National Affairs):

Of course, no illegitimate questions from me at all!

On GATT, last week we had the Director-General, Peter Sutherland, hoping to knock out a conclusion by the end of this year. Have you got any good or bad news for him?

Secondly, the French Foreign Minister, Alan Gerait [phoentic], was calling for trade policy instruments to be strengthened. Did you discuss the strengthening of trade policy instruments today, particularly in relation to, say, US anti-steel dumping provisions?

PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

Yes, we did. Mr. Major asked me questions about that and I gave him a certain amount of detail about what we would wish. The problems, as I said, will be dealt with in the documents that we will send to Brussels in the forthcoming weeks.

PRIME MINISTER:

We have to find a solution to anti-dumping and countervailing actions – there is no doubt whatever about that. I expressed the view this morning that the long-term solution to problems of international trade in steel lies in the conclusion of a multilateral steel agreement and we will continue to stay in touch to discuss that particular matter.

QUESTION (Tony Bevins, The Independent):

Have you apologised to the bastards, Mr. Major?

PRIME MINISTER:

We have been discussing Anglo-French matters this morning, Tony, Anglo-French discussions.

QUESTION (Keith Rockwell, Journal of Commerce):

Mr. Balladur and Mr. Major, was there any discussion of the EC’s policy with regard to the import of Japanese cars and was there any discussion at all of Britain’s role in all of that, whether British-made Japanese cars might be subject to any further restrictions?

PRIME MINISTER:

No, that wasn’t discussed in our discussions this morning and don’t believe it was raised when the Trade Ministers met.

QUESTION (Carol Walker, BBC TV News):

Given the attack on the French base in Sarajevo, was there any further discussion about the possible use of air strikes?

PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

It is a subject that we started to deal with several weeks ago when the so-called “safe areas” were decided upon within the UN and the point being made that respect for such safe areas is for mainly Muslim citizens in Bosnia and that the protection of such zones could require means that would be used in order to protect the populations if they were threatened and this is what is happening right now in Sarejevo in particular.

QUESTION:

I would like first of all to ask you about the latest escalation in the Lebanon and the latest Israeli aggression of the sovereign state of Lebanon. How do you see the effect of this on the peace process in the region?

My second question is addressed to the French President, M. President, changes in immigration in France have created an atmosphere of uncertainty among the immigrants in France and in particular among Arab immigrants and North African immigrants. Are you aware of this new atmosphere in the immigrant community and do you envisage any change that would take account of this situation which is unstable?

PRIME MINISTER:

On the first point, we did not discuss Lebanon this morning. On the second point, I will let the President respond directly.

PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

I would have preferred to have answered the first question as a matter of fact but when people fight each other on both sides of a frontier you can’t expect the sovereignty of each country to be fully respected and once that situation obtains then it is very natural that both sides have to accept the consequences of such a conflict and that conflict will necessarily make the peace process more complicated. There is an inherent contradiction in all this which is pretty obvious.

On the immigration legislation, you are talking about French political affairs there and I have not come here to London to talk about internal French political matters – that is rather the same as Mr. Major’s answer a moment ago when there was some mention of the necessity of talking about our Franco-British meeting and avoiding a sort of British-British discussion or a discussion internal to Britain as we say Franco-French on our side. You say the same thing? Anyway, I don’t think that the immigrants in France when they are in a completely lawful situation that is accepted, when they have been legally admitted to France following a certain number of procedures which on labour matters come under the Ministry of Labour and it can be the Ministry of the Interior when it is a question of permits and so on so foreigners who are living in normal conditions, when they are legally present on French soil, must be treated normally.

If they are not present legally on French soil – if they are illegal immigrants – then they can hardly expect to be treated exactly in the same way so it is their natural fate to be taken back home sooner or later. Now there the discussion does start of course within France and with other countries to see what safeguards and guarantees should be granted to these men and women because they deserve respect even if they have gone against the law and we have to see with other countries too what should be done in order to respect their own individual human rights but this is an internal French affair quite honestly and there is no point in having a discussion among ourselves here in Great Britain.

QUESTION (France Two):

Mr. Prime Minister, have you discussed the future of the EBRD and is Britain going to support a French candidate to support M. Atteli [phoentic]?

M. BALLADUR:

The future of the EBRD for the moment is a matter of choosing a president for the institution. As you know, France has an excellent candidate and for the rest you must ask Mr. Major what his views are.

PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

If Mr. Major allows, I will recall some memories perhaps which are more personal memories for me than for him because at the time when the various seats and headquarters and offices were negotiated among a number of international bodies, including EBRD, it had been understood that if the headquarters were to be in London then at least the first presidency and the first term of office would be a French presidency. If it isn’t the same president nevertheless I think it would be right and only natural that it should be the same country and this would be accordance with the original agreements.

PRIME MINISTER:

[Inaudible] excellent candidates. The Community are seeking a unified candidate. We have expressed our view to the President of the Community and I hope will reach a conclusion shortly.

QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

Could I ask the Prime Minister and the President, given what looks like the imminent collapse of the Exchange Rate Mechanism and all the turmoil there has been in France over Maastricht and in the British Parliament, whether they think the treaty is still relevant or should probably be torn up and the Community should start again on a more realistic and perhaps lowered-expectation treaty for European union?

PRIME MINISTER:

I don’t think the treaty should be torn up. The British Parliament has passed the treaty, it is now an Act, it has got Royal Assent subject to one outstanding court case which I hope will be swiftly cleared away and it will come into effect and I welcome that fact self-evidently since we have just taken it through Parliament. I think there is much in this treaty that is good for Europe and good for the United Kingdom and I believe it was right to take it through the House of Commons.

PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

On my side, of course, I submitted the Maastricht Treaty to a referendum in France, in other words it is the French people that voted and who chose finally what to do and there was a political battle which was a pretty difficult one where some important and very often excellent arguments were expressed on both sides. This was a national debate of considerable magnitude but the rule of democracy was applied and France adopted the Maastricht Treaty by popular vote and now the Maastricht Treaty is our rule. I was in favour of it, as you know and therefore I was delighted that this was the decision taken and the decision that was taken I would not say was more important than a vote by Parliament because I am very much in favour of representative democracy – France is a representative democracy. Because under our legislation a referendum was perfectly possible, it was a very important way of getting this really firmly established in our history and this has been done and is behind us and the government also very much hopes that the agreement will be successful.

Your somewhat hasty definition, if I may say so, of the fact that now the time had come to tear up the treaty and that the EMS is completely excluded I think is subject to examination. We are precisely working through this and it is difficult but France’s determination is unquestionable and we think that the future of Europe is important. We have different conceptions very often on this but we certainly will coordinate our efforts to the same goal and in my view at any rate it would be very harmful and very sad if the remarkable progress made among the Twelve should be into question whereas the prospect before us is that in a few years now we will have a single currency.

July 26, 1993
Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Maastricht Treaty – Social Policy Protocol – 23 July 1993

Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement made in the House of Commons on the 23rd July 1993 on the Maastricht Treaty – Social Policy Protocol, following defeat the previous night. The motion was also a confidence motion in the Government.

PRIME MINISTER:

The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): I beg to move,

That this House has confidence in the policy of Her Majesty’s Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy. After yesterday’s motion, the Cabinet thought it right to bring this motion immediately before the House. I said yesterday to the House that European policy had created a division in British politics for 20 years. We have seen the effects of that vividly over recent months. If asked, most people in the country would say that the House has spent most of its time in the past year doing nothing but debate the European Communities treaty. It has, indeed, been fully debated, but the House has done a great deal more. In one parliamentary Session, it has passed a large number of reforming Bills–on education, asylum, housing and urban renewal, trade union reform, and personal pensions. One third of our manifesto at the last election will have been enacted by the end of this parliamentary Session, and that is much to the advantage of the British nation.

Most of that will have been masked from public gaze by the disputes over European policy. Not only has that legislation been passed, but, over the same period, we have moved clearly from recession to growth. It is now clear that growth prospects for the year are likely to exceed earlier forecasts.

Those are some of the realities of what has occurred over the past year. Britain is now moving back into recovery, ready for significant sustained growth with low inflation. At the general election, that was the prescription which we promised and it is now becoming clearer day by day that that is what is being delivered to the British nation.

Against that background, it is in our national interest that we keep up the pace of reform and the pace of recovery. Parliament must put this stalemate over Europe behind it. I am not prepared to let it poison the political atmosphere any longer. The boil must be lanced, and it must be lanced today. Therefore, I shall set out in the clearest possible terms the implication for today’s debate. We have before us a motion of confidence in the Government, with all the implications that flow from that. Lest there be any doubt in the mind of any hon. Member, the issue of confidence also extends to the Opposition’s amendment. No hon. Member should be under any misapprehension about that, even though its terms are intended to entrap the unwary. It is precisely the amendment that was defeated yesterday.

At the conclusion of this debate, either the Government will have won the vote of confidence and we can proceed with our policy, subject to one outstanding court case, or we shall have lost and I shall seek a dissolution of Parliament.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman later. I want to make a little progress now.

This debate is about the Government’s policy of rejecting the social chapter. I shall spell out the disadvantages so that no one can misunderstand me. Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) quoted from the social chapter. He made it sound innocuous, harmless and even benign. If he wants to keep his blinkers on, so be it–but let Conservative Members be in no doubt about the costs and the implications of the social chapter. Measures that the Community has already brought forward, which abuse health and safety provisions, show us the scale of the costs likely to be involved in the social chapter’s provisions.

The working time directive originally would have cost British industry £5 billion ; by our efforts, that figure has been substantially reduced. The part-time directive originally would have cost £1 billion ; largely by our efforts, that directive has been stalled. The young workers directive would cost up to £150 million. Those are just three provisions, but they add up to more than £6 billion in potential costs. I could add to that list. If the social chapter came into being, those costs would be added to for every single business in this country, with the inevitable effect on jobs.

Even the right hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that employers would have to meet those costs, and more, under the social chapter. There would be higher prices, lost jobs and less competitiveness. That is the policy which the right hon. and learned Gentleman espouses. He may wish to indulge himself by voting for the social chapter–he has the luxury of being able to strike attitudes–but we must deal in realities. He would not have to pay the price of his attitudes. The price would be paid by millions of men and women working hard to hold down jobs, bring up families and improve their working conditions.

At any time, the social chapter would be an unwarranted intrusion into British life; but now, just when recovery is beginning to emerge, it would put recovery at risk. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to take my word for it, perhaps he will take the word of the chairman of ICI– [Interruption.] Labour Members may choose to scoff and sneer at the chairman of ICI, but it is his company which provides jobs in their constituencies. It is the policy of Labour Members which would cost their constituents those jobs. What the chairman of ICI had to say–perhaps the Opposition would care to listen to and reflect upon it–was :

“Continental Europe is currently in deep recession while the UK has the beginnings of an economic recovery It is … absolutely vital that business does not have imposed upon it additional costs which are unnecessary and which, in turn, could hinder the recovery.” Those are not my words, but the words of one of the most senior business men in this country.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want to hinder the recovery, or does he think that he knows more about British industry than Sir Denys Henderson, who runs ICI? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really want to impose the social chapter and hazard the recovery now coming through, especially the five consecutive monthly falls in unemployment? It is self-evident that that is exactly what he wishes to do. The most fatuous comment this House has heard for months was his assertion yesterday that the social chapter would create jobs, not cost them. Only in the unemployment offices would it create jobs.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): What does my right hon. Friend say in response to the argument put forward by many respectable business men that if we ratify this wretched treaty but we do not have the social chapter, things will be done through the social chapter by the other 11 countries which, through other aspects of the treaty, will then be imposed on the United Kingdom? If we are not there, we cannot control and restrain them.

The Prime Minister: I would say what many business men would have said to my hon. Friend had he asked them–that he is talking nonsense. The business men of this country have made it absolutely clear that they support ratification of the Maastricht treaty without the social chapter. I fail to understand why my hon. Friend wishes to impose extra costs on companies in his constituency of Northampton, North and put his constituents out of work. I hope that he can justify that to them.

I repeat that the Government cannot afford to, and will not, throw away the recovery. The social chapter is a risk which we will not take.

Mr. Benn: In making this debate a vote of confidence, the Prime Minister and other Ministers have said that if the Government lose there will be a general election. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a straightforward question : has he asked the Queen to grant a dissolution? Has she agreed to grant a dissolution? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that–as has happened in the past–she might say, “It is only a new Parliament. There are other leaders who might take it on”? She might refuse a dissolution.

The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear that if we lose the Division today I will seek a dissolution of Parliament. If the Government cannot carry their business, a dissolution of Parliament would undoubtedly be granted. The fact is that yesterday a disparate group of Members, voting for different interests on the same matter, chose to defeat the Government on a matter for which there is a genuine majority in the House. I repeat that the Government regard this as an issue of confidence and we will seek the dissolution of Parliament if we are defeated today.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister, during proceedings in this House, to say that a dissolution would undoubtedly be granted, thereby appearing to put words in the mouth of the sovereign?

Madam Speaker: It is for all hon. Members and Ministers to make their own comments, not for the Speaker of this House to interpret them or comment upon them.

The Prime Minister: It is interesting to know in reality how unready the Liberal Democrats are for an election– [Interruption.]

Several hon. Members rose —

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall take a point of order.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is perfectly clear that the Prime Minister’s speech, and his whole case, is based upon what he considers to be the evils that are contained in the social chapter–a document which was issued in 1989 and was referred to in the reply to yesterday’s debate.

From the researches of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), it emerged yesterday in a written answer that he received from a Minister that the social charter has never been presented or published by Her Majesty’s Government in Britain. Is it not the case that that charter, which is at the heart of this debate, has not been published by the Government, is not on the Table of the House, and is not in the Vote Office, so how can we proceed sensibly to consider this matter? Is it not the case that this whole debate is being conducted on hearsay and prejudice without the proper documentation being before the House?

Madam Speaker: We are proceeding today under an Act of Parliament that has already passed through this House.

Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that I spent nearly four years in the Whips Office — [Hon. Members :– “Oh.”] During that time, I was instructed not to apply any overt duress– [Laughter.] I will rephrase that, for the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members who are unable to follow the narrative. I was advised not to apply pressure or duress overtly in order to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote one way or another. I tried to obey that advice. Is not the Prime Minister’s reference to the prospect of a general election creating improper pressure on the many Conservative Members whose seats are in jeopardy?

Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I, too, was in the Whips Office, in support of a Government who did not have a majority–and I know all about duress.

The Prime Minister: The House is full of former Whips. At this moment, Britain is uniquely placed in regard to the rest of Europe–a “paradise for investors”, as M. Delors so kindly put it. There is no doubt that Britain–with low inflation, low interest rates, competitive labour costs and competitive interest rates–has the leading edge in the marketplace in Europe. The Government have no intention of throwing away those hard-won advantages, as the social chapter would compel us to do.

The obsession that some Opposition Members have with the social chapter is bizarre. They want more regulation and more social costs just as the rest of Europe is seeking to draw back from extra social costs. France is curbing spending on health and pensions. Holland is freezing social security benefits. Germany is cutting back unemployment assistance and job creation schemes. They are doing so because they realise that Europe must keep all its costs down to compete in the world.

Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about competitiveness in Europe, but Europe must compete with the United States and Japan as well. All across Europe people know that Europe is losing competitiveness at present. Twenty years ago, the unemployment rate across Europe was 60 per cent. of that in the United States. Today, it is 60 per cent. above the United States. That is largely because of the extra costs that we have placed on our businesses, running their competitiveness and damaging their employment prospects.

The Opposition may seek to make gestures and price people out of work, but the Government’s job is to put them back in work–and that is the policy which we shall follow.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): The Prime Minister is making another knocking speech against the social chapter. The reality is that he believes that he can politically survive today only if he threatens his entire party with self-destruction in a general election campaign. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how often and how long such a tactic can be successfully employed?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, with his curious voting pattern on Europe, represents a part of the United Kingdom which has done remarkably well out of inward investment because of our membership of the European Community–a membership which he would have done well to support in the Lobbies last night with the Government. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents will have noted how he voted.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. History shows that down the years sordid deals on the Floor of the House have cost the lives of countless people in the north of Ireland. Does not the Prime Minister have a duty today to tell the House what deal he did with the nine Ulster Unionists to buy their votes yesterday, contrary to their manifesto? Will you, Madam Speaker, also ask the Prime Minister to rule that the definition of an honest man is one who, once he has been bought, stays bought?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that those matters are not for me but for debate.

The Prime Minister: I will clear up the matter for the hon. Gentleman so that he is left in no doubt. Nothing was asked for, nothing was offered, and nothing was given. So perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to withdraw his remark. He might also bear in mind that unemployment in the part of the United Kingdom that he represents is very high, as he never ceases to remind the House. He, too, would make it higher, by the way that he cast his vote in the Divisions that we have had.

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way–particularly, given his latter remarks, as I am wearing the Anglo-Irish tie. Further to his comments yesterday, which he has just repeated, does he agree that so severe has the recession become in the other European countries that, although no specific proposals for the social chapter have yet been made, when they are published in due course we shall find that they are milder than the social action programme that the Government already accept under the social dimension? May I therefore ask my right hon. Friend what all the fuss is about?

The Prime Minister: I will tell my hon. Friend what all the fuss is about. Once we adhere to the social protocol, it will be there for good– not just for the brief period in which our partners in Europe may be wary about bringing matters forward.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford): Given that the motion deals specifically with the adoption of the protocol on social policy, will my right hon. Friend tell me how we shall be able to go ahead with it when it is expressly excluded by the Act of Parliament that was passed last week but is included in the treaty that my right hon. Friend signed?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend, despite his close study of the matter, has perhaps misunderstood the domestic legislation that we have been examining. If he cares to read it more carefully–perhaps he could take some time to do so before we vote this afternoon–he will understand the whole matter a little better. The Government were elected just over a year ago with the largest popular vote in British history. It was a vote for policies for economic recovery, which we are now getting, for private enterprise, which we will sustain, and for individual freedom, which we are extending.

Mr. John Hume (Foyle) rose–

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have generously given way, and I wish to make some progress.

The social chapter would put much of that at risk. What the electors did not vote for at the last election was the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s policies : increased inflation, corporatism and state intervention, a reverse of trade union reform, and craven compliance and abject surrender in the face of every regulation coming from Brussels. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues are only too ready to advance socialism through Europe, never ready to stand up to battle for British ideas and British ideas in Europe.

One whiff of a new regulation, a new burden or a new cost from Europe and the right hon. and learned Gentleman yelps that he wants it too. No doubt as a small boy he was avid for measles and desperate for chicken pox as well. What is more, he says, without these new burdens Britain will become a sweatshop economy. It would be a great help if, during the recess, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would go out into industry and meet some of the people who run it. What would the social chapter do to much of other parts of legislation? Gone, reluctantly and sadly in the minds of Opposition Members, are the days when the trade unions held such sway in this country. They held it to ransom month after month, year after year. Now all they hold is the right hon. and learned Gentleman to ransom, issue by issue–not the Leader of the Opposition, but the trade unions’ glove puppet when it comes to policy. The social chapter would put much of that in reverse gear. The last thing we want is a Government committed to putting union bosses back in the boardroom, and I cannot believe that the House will vote for that.

Many countries in the European Community are now going into recession, and that is where the obsession with extra regulation would put us back as well, just as we have emerged from it. I cannot understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants us to adopt the social chapter when other countries are beginning to realise its costs and burdens. As the president–

Mr. Hume rose–

The Prime Minister: I have given way sufficiently.

As the president of the CBI said in The Times yesterday– [Interruption.] I know that the Opposition do not like these quotes from people who understand business but they are going to get them. He said :

“A Commons vote tonight leading to inclusion of the social chapter in the ratified Maastricht treaty would set back the cause of common sense and competitiveness in Europe by several years.”

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will shortly be the first Labour leader to speak to the CBI; perhaps before he goes he should start listening to the CBI, too.

Other countries around the world are beginning to realise the effect of excessive social costs. The chairmen of our leading banks yesterday may it perfectly clear that their concern– [Interruption.] The Opposition do not care. I am talking about the people who run industry and commerce, but the Opposition do not care. They do not mind how many people are unemployed if they can salve their consciences. The chairmen made it clear that people outside, European business men, are

“concerned about the costs and over-rigid labour and social benefit structures in their own countries, and see the social chapter as adding to this problem.”

Only Opposition Members fail to be able to see that.

The choice because the House today could not be clearer. The Government have opened up new opportunities for people with low inflation and for union members to have more say in their affairs, more opportunities for home owners and more opportunities for business to compete abroad. By contrast, the Opposition offer policies of opportunism, not opportunity, at every level. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said last year :

“I do not think we should oppose the Maastricht treaty”, yet that is exactly what he did last night. He claims to be an ardent European. He said:

“I have always believed that Britain’s future lies in Europe, and that we must take a confident and leading role in the European Community.”

So what has the ardent European done in the last year? He voted against Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. He voted against Maastricht in the paving debate; he voted against Maastricht last night. What did he do on Second Reading of the Single European Act, this ardent European? He abstained. What did he do on Second Reading of the Maastricht Bill, this ardent European? He abstained. On Third Reading, the ardent European abstained. Mr. Valiant-for-Abstention–the ardent European. Perhaps, out of sheer habit, he will abstain when we come to the vote this afternoon. Some European, and some principles! As Dr. Johnson said of a man with allegedly good principles, “He does not wear them out in practice”; and neither does the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He wears his principles lightly so that he may discard them whenever convenient.

This country cannot afford to let this stalemate on European policy continue. It is against the interests of government in this country to do so. This House must decide today whether it is prepared to sustain the Government in office or encourage me to seek a dissolution. We did not lightly bring this motion forward, but the matter could not have been left any longer. It has to be decided, and the only way to decide it is to reject the social chapter. If this country were to accept it, it would mean an end to recovery, a return to corporatism, and an end to competitiveness. That is not the way forward for this country, and I hope that the House will decisively reject it.

July 23, 1993