The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: European Community

  • Mr Major’s Speech to European Democratic Union Conference – 12 September 1991

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech to the European Democratic Union Conservative Party Leaders’ Conference, given on Thursday 12th September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Rt Hon John Major MP Thursday 12 September 1991 533/91

    Extract from a speech by the Rt Hon John Major MP (Huntingdon), Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister, to the European Democratic Union Conservative Party Leaders’ Conference:

    Jacques Chirac and I met in London a few weeks ago. We talked, among other things, about the future of our continent. I valued that discussion. But neither of us could then foresee that within a matter of weeks, we would be witnesses to one of the most dramatic revolutions of the 20th Century.

    I do not need to tell an audience in this city about the perils, as well as the opportunities, of revolution. This new revolution brings tremendous opportunities. But it brings uncertainties as well. And risks. They combine into a tremendous challenge, but it is not just to the people of the Soviet Union. It is also to the governments and peoples of the whole of Europe. It is about that challenge that I want to talk today.

    For our parties of the centre right, the sudden and total collapse of Soviet Communism must be a special source of satisfaction. A dark and discredited ideology lies in ruins; rejected by the people it ensnared.

    It was an ideology which promised power to the people; but it drained power from the people. It promised prosperity; but it brought poverty.

    It did not cherish initiative; it did crush all personal economic aspiration. It replaced the inventiveness of the human imagination with the mumbo-jumbo of Marxist doctrine. It lived by tyranny, oppression and lies. And even the failed coup epitomised one of its most striking characteristics: enormous incompetence, even in the pursuit of its own misbegotten objectives.

    Brian Mulroney recently told me a story of a conversation with President Gorbachev during his visit to Canada. President Gorbachev asked: what was the secret of Canada’s success as a wheat producer? What did Canada have that the Soviet Union did not? The answer, Brian Mulroney said, was quite simple: the Canadian farmer worked, not for the party nor for the state but for himself and his family. Like farmers in all our countries, he was prepared to work from first light until after dark knowing that he could improve his lot and pass on something worthwhile to future generations. That was Canada’s ‘secret’.

    It is to the enormous credit of President Gorbachev that he saw clearly the flaws and injustices in the Soviet system. Ultimately, Soviet Communism was doomed to collapse because its foundations were rotten. But it was sustained by repression. It was President Gorbachev’s decision to move from repression to reform which opened the doors to freedom. They have opened first to the people of Eastern and Central Europe and now to the people of the Soviet Union. For this act alone, his place in history is secure.

    Today, there is no longer a Communist Party in the Soviet Union. It is an irony that while the Communist Party is actually banned in Russia, Communist parties survive in most of our countries. So where are they now going to look for their ideological lead? To Cuba, just as Soviet troops are starting to withdraw? Or China?

    I have just returned from China. I made that visit in the interests of the continued freedom and prosperity of Hong Kong. But I had another purpose too: to try to bring the influence of the free world to bear on the leaders of China, and to show the people of China that they are not forgotten by the West.

    Even under the harsh and baleful influence of Communist rule, China is changing. The province of Canton is in a ferment of free enterprise. Take a helicopter and fly over Hong Kong and you will see that, beyond the line of the border with China, the lights of commerce and industry burn almost as brightly. The people there have some of the freedoms of the market place. They can benefit from their own hard work and enterprise. But they do not have personal liberty – the most precious freedom of all. It may take time, but I believe that political and personal freedom must inevitably follow the liberation of market forces.

    In the meantime, we in the West must keep pushing at the door. I raised with Chinese leaders a large number of human rights cases. They did not dismiss them out of hand. They recognised that they had to listen and that they had to respond. They would prefer not to. But they did. A Hong Kong citizen who was in prison in China a week ago is back home in Hong Kong today.

    I believe we must keep up the pressure on them. If every visitor from the West reminds China of their obligations, as a member of the United Nations, and a Permanent Member of the Security Council in particular, then that pressure will produce results.

    The bastions of Communism have crumbled. But it still has its last outposts. No one can rule out desperate rearguard actions. But all the evidence is that we are now opening a new chapter. I am particularly delighted that our friends from the Baltic Republics are opening it with us. They have rejoined the European family – and not a moment too soon. Soon, with Britain’s support, they will become full members of the United Nations.

    None of these changes are easy. Yugoslavia is a vivid example of a country teetering between self-determination and self-destruction. It is a reminder too of our responsibilities as democratic Europeans.

    These are events of world significance. But, first and foremost, they affect our own continent of Europe.

    At the end of the Second World War, Europe was split into two. The countries that emerged from war into freedom and democracy took two great steps to defend their liberties. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was formed. The European Community was launched. The fact that so many other European countries have since sought to join the Community, or to form associations with it, is the greatest signal of its success. Now the part of our continent that was denied the political and economic renaissance that the rest of us have enjoyed is emerging into freedom and democracy. For the rest of us that poses a unique responsibility. We cannot and must not turn our back on them.

    We have the immediate, urgent duty to throw them a lifeline. We have already done this for the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. Each of our countries individually is helping. We in Britain have, through our ‘Know How’ fund, started to help the countries of Eastern and Central Europe develop the infrastructure of a modern economy. We have helped with privatisation in Poland; with the Stock Exchange in Budapest; with the banking sector in Czechoslovakia. Polish-speaking civil servants from London are today at work in Poland’s Ministry of Labour in Kracow.

    Now we must do the same for the Soviet Union. Already, in July at the Group of Seven Summit, we agreed on:

    (i) Special Association for the Soviet Union with the IMF and the World Bank;

    (ii) Support for the Soviet Union and its republics from all the relevant international organisations;

    (iii) Intensified technical assistance – especially in the fields of energy, the conversion of defence industries, food distribution, nuclear safety and transport.

    (iv) Improved access to western markets.

    The greatest single obstacle to the implementation of that plan was indecision within the Soviet Union. Would the Soviet Union go down the path of reform – genuine reform – or would the Soviet Union still try to combine partial political freedoms with economic centralism? We now know the answer to that question. The coup designed to halt reform has failed. It is now the catalyst to accelerate it. Only the Soviet Union and its republics can determine their future course. But we can help, both in the short term and for the future. First of all:

    (i) We must assess their immediate needs urgently. They may need food aid to get them through this winter. If so, we and our partners will be generous with our help.

    (ii) The Soviet Union and its republics will need an efficient infrastructure for food processing and distribution. In Britain we have assembled a team of our major food producers and distributors. They will go to the Soviet Union in a few days’ time to discover how they can help with food processing and distribution. Other countries of the Group of Seven are sending teams of their own. We have all agreed to pool our assessment by the end of this month.

    (iii) We must speed up the implementation of existing food credits.

    (iv) We must accelerate technical assistance and ‘Know How’ programmes.

    (v) We must get the Soviet Union and the IMF into discussion so that the IMF can assess the Soviet economy and its requirements. I am pleased to say that a team from the IMF is already in the Soviet Union.

    (vi) And we must accelerate the special association of the Soviet Union with the IMF that was agreed at the G7 Summit;

    This will be a massive task. It is not a task for the Group of Seven alone, or the European Community alone. It is a task for all of us who enjoy prosperity and who have a stake in the Soviet Union’s new freedom.

    That is the lifeline approach. But we must look also to the longer term. The people of the Soviet Union will have to decide what political system they want. When I was there ten days ago, one could feel the ground of history shifting beneath one’s feet. There was much uncertainty. Boris Yeltsin told me that the future shape of the Soviet Union would not necessarily be a federation or a confederation but something new and unique. Already, however, certain points were emerging. Many of them were confirmed at last week’s meeting of the Congress of Peoples’ Deputies, notably single armed forces for the Soviet Union; confirmation of the Soviet Union’s adherence to its international obligations and treaties; central control of nuclear weapons.

    I pressed the Soviet leaders particularly on the issue of defence spending. For a country in dire economic straits, to spend 25 per cent of its resources on military expenditure is unsustainable and unacceptable. They must help themselves to be sure of our help. I have assurances from President Gorbachev, President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Silayev that defence spending is being cut – and will be cut further.

    We cannot determine the future of the Soviet Union. But we can help – or we can hinder. We must offer them a new deal – and not a raw deal.

    I would like to set out what I believe should be the basis of our relationship with the newest European democracy, or democracies.

    We want them:

    i) to create a genuinely democratic society;

    ii) to develop a free market economy;

    iii) to secure a stable and just system of government with protection for minorities;

    iv) to play a constructive part in world affairs;

    v) and to become an integral part of democratic Europe.

    The idea of a common European home was once a slogan. Now it can become a reality.

    We cannot allow one artificial division in Europe to be replaced by another. We in the European Community cannot say: ‘Here is our club.

    We have made the rules. And we will make new rules regardless of your interests’.

    Under the Treaty of Rome, any democratic European country can apply for membership of the Community. Eastern and Central European countries have made clear that they see full membership of the Community as their ultimate goal. I believe the Community should welcome them in as soon as they are ready politically and economically. We must be prepared to widen our horizons and widen our membership.

    Already, at British initiative, we are, in the European Community, speeding progress towards Association Agreements for Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland. Of course, this involves some sacrifice. Association Agreements mean opening our markets to Eastern and Central European Countries. That means more competition – including in some agricultural products. But it is the right way ahead.

    There is no purpose in giving countries aid and denying them trade access. Such policies would leave them on a drip feed of dependence for ever. It would be absurd and potentially dangerous, to preach the virtues of the free market but to practise old-fashioned protectionism. I think there will now be a real effort in the European Community to reach an agreement by the end of this month on agricultural access for Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

    I have encouraged the Commission to be in urgent discussion with the newly independent Baltic Republics. They too will want a special relationship with the European Community. That may take the form of a Trade and Co-operation agreement leading, in due course, to an Association Agreement. In the longer run they may seek full membership. That possibility should be open to them too. And we should tell them so now.

    I believe the European Community must hold out the hand of friendship and cooperation also to Russia and other republics of the Soviet Union. It is too early to say what form the relationship will take. But we should not close off options. It is no use saying the Community would not be the same if Russia became closely associated with it. It might have to change. But then we do not live in an unchanging world. The Community will have to change with it.

    The Community’s strengths to date has come from its dynamism. We have not stood still. Nor can we now. That does not mean that we should neglect the development of the Community in its present form. But we must ensure that that development opens doors rather than closes them. We should be lowering barriers, not raising hurdles.

    We Europeans must heed the aspirations and choices of 400 million European citizens. There is an unmistakable feeling that our continent is coming together. European union will not be led by politicians. It will be led by people. Politicians must not create barriers for half of Europe to step over.

    In the West we already enjoy fundamental freedoms and human rights. Now we are extending their compass with new opportunities to work, trade and travel. We may have to work out new patterns of co-operation. The Soviet Union has the enormous task of adapting itself. We should be realistic. We should be practical. We should not push it in the direction of unrealisable objectives. Equally, we should not set artificial limits on its development. For years, the objective of a Single Market for the members of the EC was a far off dream. Now, it is becoming a reality. We should not close our mind to the prospect of the European Community embracing many of the newly emerging democracies. One day we shall surely do so.

    That is one side of the openness I am talking about. But there is another kind of openness we in the Community should bear in mind as we work out the shape of the new European union. We must heed the way the world is moving – towards more decentralised, more accountable structures. In our talks on political union, we must enshrine a principle which captures the spirit of the age: it is the principle that decisions should always be taken at the lowest practicable level, close to the people they affect.

    In security too, openness and trust must be our objectives. They are the new key words in the language – some would say jargon – of security. The disintegration of the Warsaw Pact presents new opportunities for confidence-building. The CFE Treaty offers us the prize of a proper verification regime. We should redouble our efforts to secure a ban on chemical weapons. We must strengthen the convention on biological warfare. And we must strive to set up a UN arms register to control the sales of conventional weapons to the Third World.

    These opportunities are there to be taken. And why are they there? They are there because the Atlantic Alliance has held fast. It has provided the security which is the prerequisite for our immense economic progress. Like the European Community, it has provided an outstanding model of co-operation. Like the Community, it offers us a solid framework within which to manage the process of change.

    It would be folly to suppose that the great changes of recent weeks justify neglect of our defence. There is too much uncertainty, too many nuclear weapons, too many countries with nuclear ambitions to allow complacency. Of course we Europeans should do more for our own defence. We have in the Western European Union the means to do it. Let us turn it into a real European pillar for the Atlantic Alliance. Let us use it to meet security threats from outside the NATO area.

    Recent developments make the continued American and Canadian commitment to our continent more necessary, not less. It is not doctrine which holds NATO together, but shared interests and needs. As we develop our growing European defence identity, we must ensure that it is compatible with, not in conflict with, our mutual obligations as members of the North Atlantic Alliance.

    Last, but not least, we should remember that trade is a peace maker – one of the most powerful and persuasive. Countries locked together in trade have mutual interests that prevent them being locked together in conflict.

    Trade is the lifeblood of the international economy. When trade is relatively free, the international economy grows quickly and vigorously and all countries benefit. When trade is restricted, individual economies suffer, even those of the would-be beneficiaries of protectionism.
    Free trade is vital for future world prosperity. It also provides vital underpinning for good political relations.

    The GATT is at the heart of the world trading system. The Uruguay Round is now at a critical stage. The hopes of the developing world as much as the industrialised world rest on a successful outcome. At the G7 Summit in July, we all undertook to make a successful outcome this year a personal priority.

    The EC is now the world’s largest trading entity. Together with the US and Japan it accounts for half the world’s trade. We have a central responsibility for maintaining a strong, open world trading system.

    We are already dismantling barriers inside the Community. That should be part of a wider process of opening up world markets. We should vigorously resist pressures for a Fortress Europe. And we should guard against trading blocs based on Europe, the USA and the Pacific. That would be deeply damaging to world prosperity – and to world stability.

    Openness in trade will be the test of our commitment to a real European union. For many of the countries represented here today, it will make the difference between prosperity and poverty. The Twelve should rise to the challenge, and that includes agriculture. The debate may be technical; but the underlying issues are fundamental. We talk of a new world order. It is fragile and flawed. But the idea is not unrealistic. If we were to fail to reach agreement on how the world is to trade and do business, we would deal a body blow to our hopes of a new world order. And the damage would be entirely self inflicted.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the open society is on the march. Not just in Europe, but in every continent. Different countries will have their own ways of pursuing reform. But the lesson of the 20th Century is filtering through: freedom is the precondition of a happier world – and free markets are the precondition of a more prosperous world. It falls to us Europeans to spread that simple message, and live up to it ourselves. To fail would be unforgivable. To succeed will bring prizes beyond calculation. There is no better place to start than here on our own continent. And no better time to start than now.

  • Mr Major’s Comments after Meeting with President Mitterrand – 11 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments after the meeting with President Mitterrand, made in an interview in Paris on Wednesday 11th September 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how the talks had progressed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With President Mitterrand, as ever very friendly, very constructive and very worthwhile. We covered a wide range of subjects. As we meet and speak so frequently, much of the background can be pushed aside and we can deal with the matters of immediate important so we dealt at some length with the present circumstances in the Soviet Union, what is happening and we believe will happen. We have a very similar view on the present problems in Yugoslavia and the importance of the peace conference and the arbitration process; we spent a good deal of time on that. We discussed also the Intergovernmental Conference and the need to move forward and try and reach an agreement in Maastricht later on this year. We discussed the Association Agreements with the Eastern European nations and we both believe that a solution to the present difficulties will be found for that within this month, so it was very useful and very constructive and we were able to touch on a number of other matters as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was still division between France wanting to deepen the European Community and him wanting to widen it].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a whole series of matters to be considered about both deepening and widening the Community. We are considering deepening in the two Intergovernmental Conferences and I think we will reach satisfactory conclusions on that at Maastricht though precisely what they will be at the moment is unclear. There is a great deal of discussion, a great deal of hard talking, a great deal of negotiation before that occurs but my position for a long time has been that I don’t want a girdle thrown around the Community. Nobody in the Community wants to say: “Here we are, nobody will join us in future!”. That isn’t what the construction of the Community is about; we want to see it widen as well. Half of Europe after the War turned out to be free and that became part of NATO by and large and it became part of the Community; the other half is increasingly free; I think they will want to play an increasing role in the economic process in the West. Over time, I think we would wish to see that.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Luxembourg European Council – 1 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on the 1st July 1991 on the European Council held in Luxembourg held from 28th-29th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Luxembourg on 28 and 29 June. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the United Kingdom.

    It was clear from the events there that Yugoslavia must be the first item on our agenda. I discussed the overnight position with Prime Minister Lubbers and with Chancellor Kohl before the Council opened. We were able to reach rapid agreement in the Council on invoking the emergency mechanisms of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and a meeting is taking place in Vienna this afternoon. We also agreed to dispatch to Yugoslavia the Foreign Ministers of the troika–Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Italy. Their visit brought some respite in the conflict, but the situation was very fragile yesterday and the Foreign Ministers returned to Yugoslavia yesterday afternoon. They secured agreement to the appointment of Mr. Mesic of Croatia as the next President of Yugoslavia and to other measures to defuse the crisis. The situation remains very volatile and the Community will need to be closely involved over the coming weeks. In the meantime, Community aid to Yugoslavia has been suspended. British citizens have been advised to leave Slovenia.

    The main item of scheduled business was to discuss progress in the two intergovernmental conferences launched last year, one on economic and monetary union and the other on political union. Discussion centred on the issues raised in a draft treaty text circulated by the presidency, though there was no detailed negotiation of the text itself.

    This European Council–as we had wanted–was a stocktaking. It was not the occasion to take decisions, but we have registered the considerable progress made in the Luxembourg presidency as well as our collective will to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December. The conclusions, which have been placed in the Library of the House, incorporate a number of points of importance to the United Kingdom.

    I made it clear that I welcomed the structure of the present draft of the treaty, although some other partners in the Community disagree with it strongly. The present text means that some things are done on the basis of the treaty of Rome but others on the basis of intergovernmental action in which the treaty of Rome does not apply and the Commission does not have the sole right of initiative. I welcomed the concept of a common foreign and security policy set firmly within the context of the Atlantic alliance and stressed the need to work by consensus in this crucial area.

    There is agreement on the preparation of proposals to improve the implementation of Community law. That reflects a British proposal that would enable the European Court of Justice to fine member states that fail to comply with Community legislation. We have long argued for a level playing field and for full respect of the rule of law, and we are determined to get it. We have a good record on implementation and we believe that all states that sign up to Community law should implement it.

    The conclusions call for early progress on the remaining legislation needed to complete the single market. This means in particular measures on insurance, and air, sea and road transport, which are of importance to this country.

    The Council discussed the need to strengthen the Community’s external perimeter boundary if free movement of people is to be able to take place within it. We also agreed to better co-ordination in the fight against international drug trafficking and organised crime through the establishment of a European Criminal Investigation Office.

    The conclusions also commit us to strengthening the Community’s links with the countries of central and eastern Europe. This will initially take the form of association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Government hope that those countries–and probably others–will be ready for full membership in due course.

    I also made it clear that there were things in the present draft treaty with which I could not agree, and it was understood that nothing could be agreed until everything is agreed at the conclusion of these discussions. I explained that even though to many federal union implies decentralisation, the term carried the reverse implication in this country and would not be acceptable in a text to be agreed at the end of the year.

    I explained our reservations about the existing text on the role of the European Parliament. We see a strong case for an increased role for the European Parliament in areas such as control over the Commission through audit of expenditure and measures to safeguard the rights of Community citizens, including the appointment of a European ombudsman. The text entirely reserves our position on the issue of co-decision. The present proposal, involving a complicated conciliation procedure, would not in our view improve Community decision-taking.

    In the discussion on economic and monetary union I maintained our reserve on a single currency and a single central bank. We discussed the issue of economic convergence. The need for such convergence is increasingly recognised by our partners, but the nature and extent of that convergence and its relationship with possible target dates for moves to stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union are still for negotiation. All other member states understand that there must, in any case, be a separate decision by the Government and this House on whether the United Kingdom would move to a single currency and, if so, when.

    The European Council has issued a number of political declarations which are also available in the Library of the House.

    The Council endorsed the initiative that I took in April to establish a United Nations register of conventional arms transfers, and we will together table a draft resolution on this at the United Nations General Assembly.

    The Council also endorsed a British and German initiative to improve the co-ordination of disaster relief within the United Nations system. We envisage the appointment of a high-level co-ordinator, with direct access to emergency funding and with the authority to pull together the whole disaster relief operation. We are taking that initiative forward in the United Nations now. At British initiative, the Council agreed a text on human rights, the first such declaration ever adopted by the European Council. The Community will use its leverage to promote human rights through the economic and co-operation agreements which it makes with third countries.

    We welcomed the abolition in South Africa of the remaining legislative pillars of apartheid. We also declared our support for the renewal of sporting links with South Africa on a case-by-case basis where unified and non-racial sporting bodies have been set up. The establishment of such an independent and non-racial body for cricket was announced on the same day.

    I believe that this European Council was a good example of the Community at work. We took rapid action to respond to the crisis in Yugoslavia and will continue to work together for a peaceful settlement. We took stock in a businesslike way of the progress made under Luxembourg’s chairmanship. There are difficult issues still to be resolved. As in any negotiation, there will have to be give and take and a judgment will have to be made by the Government and by the House on the overall package at the end of the negotiation. There was a common determination in Luxembourg to work for an agreed outcome to the negotiations by the end of the year. I shall continue to argue for what I believe to be in the interests of our own country and the interests of the Community as a whole.

  • Luxembourg European Council Presidency Conclusions – 29 June 1991

    Below is the text of the European Council Presidency Conclusions following the Luxembourg European Council held on the 28th and 29th June 1991.

    The European Council heard a statement by Mr BARON, President of the European Parliament, devoted mainly to outlining the European Parliament’s position on current discussions in the Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union and that on Economic and Monetary Union.

    Intergovernmental Conferences

    The European Council took note of the draft Treaty prepared by the Luxembourg Presidency in the light of proceedings at the two Conferences. It welcomed the considerable progress that had been made since the two European Councils held in Rome.

    The European Council confirms that the proceedings of these two Conferences should continue in parallel. The final decision on the text of the Treaty on Political Union and on Economic and Monetary Union will be taken by the Maastricht European Council so that the results of the two Conferences can be submitted for ratification simultaneously during 1992 and the new Treaty can enter into force on 1 January 1993.

    The European Council considers that the Presidency’s draft forms the basis for the continuation of negotiations, both as regards most of the principal points contained in it and the state of play at the two Conferences, on the understanding that final agreement by the Member States will only be given to the Treaty as a whole.

    Political Union

    The European Council’s discussions have gone into greater detail on some issues for which a solution is crucial to the success of the negotiations. It has established the following general guidelines:

    Principles

    The European Council considers that the Union should be based on the following principles, as decided at the European Council in Rome on 13 and 14 December 1990: full maintenance of the “acquis communautaire” and development thereof, a single institutional framework with procedures appropriate to the requirements of the various spheres of action, the evolving. nature of the process of integration or union, the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of economic and social cohesion.

    The European Council also stresses the importance of establishing Union citizenship as a fundamental element in the construction of Europe.

    Common foreign and security policy

    The Presidency’s draft reflects the unanimous desire to reinforce the identity and role of the Union as a political entity on the international scene, as well as the concern to ensure the consistency of all its external activities. The decision-making process for implementation of the common foreign and security policy has still to be examined. Common foreign and security policy will extend to all questions relating to the security of the Union.

    The European Council has agreed that the question of strengthening the defence identity of the Union will be decided at the final stage of the Conference. That identity will take account of the traditional positions of certain Member States. The role of the WEU, which is an essential part of the process of European integration, will be clarified.

    The Community Member States which are party to the Treaty on the Atlantic Alliance, in accordance with the guidelines established at the recent meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in Copenhagen, regard the ultimate reinforcement of a European defence identity as an important contribution to the strengthening of the Atlantic Alliance. In the immediate future, they will endeavour to work out common guidelines with a view to the forthcoming NATO Summit in Rome.

    Democratic legitimacy

    The European Council considers the Presidency’s draft to contain significant proposals strengthening the European Parliament’s political, legislative and monitoring role, which must go hand in hand with development of the Union. The European Council has also noted that achieving a consensus on the principle of a co-decision procedure will be an important political part of the final agreement. In the Presidency’s view, this procedure will initially be applied to a number of suitable areas, with the possibility of extending it further as the Union progresses.

    For some Member States, acceptance of the co-decision principle is linked to overall progress in the development of Community policies, particularly in the social and environmental fields, in accordance with the proposals contained in the Presidency’s draft.

    Social policy

    The European Council emphasized the need to strengthen the Community’s social dimension in the context of Political Union and Economic and Monetary Union. It thinks that the Community’s role in this area should be stepped up and its action made more effective, with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and the respective roles of the Member States and the social partners, in accordance with national practices and traditions. This general approach must not call into question or in any way affect national social security and social protection schemes.

    Economic and social cohesion

    The European Council believes that ever closer economic and social cohesion is an integral part of the general development of the Union and it considers that this aspect should be embodied in the Treaty in an appropriate way.

    It heard a statement from the President of the Commission on the effects of the policies currently being pursued by the Community from the point of view of economic and social cohesion, and on the outlook in this area. It asked the Commission to clarify the various ideas put forward in the statement in time for the next European Council.

    The European Council has already stressed the particular importance in this context of establishing major infrastructure networks at European level.

    Implementation of Community Law

    The European Council agreed in principle to the approach in the Presidency’s draft, designed to improve the implementation of Community law.

    Home affairs and judicial co-operation

    The European Council noted with interest the practical proposals submitted by the German delegation, which supplement the work already carried out in this area (see Annex I).

    The European Council agreed on the objectives underlying these proposals and instructed the Conference to examine them further with a view to revision of the Union Treaty.

    Economic and Monetary Union

    The Intergovernmental Conference has revealed, with its draft Treaty and the draft statute of the ESCB annexed thereto, that there are broad areas of agreement on the basic components of EMU. At the next European Council these draft texts should be finalized according to the guidelines worked out there and in keeping with the European Council’s conclusions of 27 and 28 October 1990, recalling the United Kingdom reserve attached thereto.

    The European Council emphasizes the need to make satisfactory and lasting progress with economic and monetary convergence as of now, and as part of the first stage of Economic and Monetary Union, with particular reference to price stability and sound public finance.

    In this context, the European Council notes that in the near future several Governments intend to submit specific multi-annual programmes designed to secure the requisite progress on convergence, which will quantify the objectives and the means of securing them. The European Council would encourage other Governments to submit such programmes and calls upon the Commission and the ECOFIN Council to report regularly on the implementation of these programmes and on progress with convergence.

    Internal Market

    1. The European Council points to the importance for business and consumers and for the future development of the Community of the internal market being completed within the time limits laid down. It notes that three quarters of the measures provided for in the White Paper have been decided. In particular it welcomes the agreement reached at the latest ECOFIN Council on the alignment of VAT rates and excise duties which opens the way to the completion of an area without frontiers on 1 January 1993. The European Council records with satisfaction that the approximation of excise duties on diesel oil will make it possible, as it requested at its meeting in Rome, to substantially reduce distortions of competition in the road transport sector within the context of a comprehensive and coherent transport policy. As regards road transport, liberalization should be extended to transit third countries. The European Council calls upon the Council to finalize the dossier on the taxation of road transport with reference to the aspects which have still to be examined in depth, namely the tax on commercial vehicles and the subject of tolls. The European Council also noted the recent progress made in the field of insurance, the opening up of public procurement, road safety, controls on the possession of arms and veterinary and plant-health legislation.

    The various Community institutions must do everything in their power so that the entire legislative programme required for completing the large market may be adopted by 31 December 1991 at the latest, due regard being had to the time needed for implementation at national level.

    1. In this context, the following deserve particular attention during the next half year: public procurement in the service sector, financial services, co-operation between undertakings, and in particular the Statute of the European Company, definitive arrangements in the field of insurance, pharmaceuticals and the veterinary and plant-health sectors. In the field of indirect taxation, all the necessary decisions will have to be taken as soon as possible to give effect to the agreement reached in the ECOFIN Council.

    Alongside harmonization of the conditions of competition in the transport sector, the necessary measures will have to be adopted before the end of the year in preparation for the final phase of air transport liberalization; progress will also have to be made before the end of the year on liberalizing cabotage.

    On a more general level, the European Council recalled the importance of ensuring that the competitiveness of European industry can develop under favourable conditions. It emphasized in particular the need for the industrial sector to adapt continuously to structural changes, subject to respect for the principles of an open and competitive economy.

    1. Lastly, the European Council emphasizes the importance for the credibility of the integration process under way of correct and proper implementation by the Member States of the acts adopted by the Community and ratification of conventions signed by the Member States. It notes with satisfaction that the situation has improved regarding the incorporation of Directives into national law and invites each Government to take all necessary steps to make up for time lost so far and the Commission to report back to it for its next meeting.

    Social Dimension

    The European Council notes that the progress made in the completion of the internal market has not been accompanied by comparable progress in the field of social policy. It emphasizes that the Community, the Member States and the representatives of employers and employees should play a role in the implementation of the principles contained in the “Social Charter” according to their respective responsibilities.

    It requests in particular that the discussions begun in the Social Affairs Council on the Commission’s action programme for implementing the Charter should be intensified so that the necessary decisions can be reached, at an early date, having regard for the specific situation and practices of each Member State.

    Free Movement of Persons

    The European Council welcomes the fact that all the Member States have signed the Convention on Asylum.

    The European Council notes with satisfaction that a very important step towards the creation of an area without internal frontiers where persons may move freely under the terms of the Treaty will be accomplished very shortly when full agreement is reached on the Convention between the Member States on the crossing of their external borders.

    The European Council requests the Ministers with responsibility in this area to finalize agreement at their meeting on 1 July, taking as their model solutions adopted in the past with a view to overcoming the outstanding difficulty.

    The European Council asks the ad hoc Group on Immigration to put in hand without delay the measures necessary for this Convention to be effectively applied, with a view to adoption of those measures as soon as possible after the Convention enters into force. The European Council also instructs the ad hoc Group on Immigration to embark on discussions for a Convention on the protection of individuals in relation to the processing of personal data. Work on that Convention must be completed by 30 June 1992 at the latest.

    The European Council also records its agreement to the recommendations submitted by the Co-ordinators’ Group and requests that action should be taken on them as soon as possible.

    Regarding immigration and the right of asylum, the European Council has agreed on the objectives underlying the German delegation’s proposals as set forth in point B of Annex I and requests the Ministers with responsibility for immigration to submit proposals before the European Council’s next meeting in Maastricht.

    Drugs

    The European Council has taken note of the first report from by the relevant Committee (CELAD) on the implementation of the European Plan to combat drugs. It emphasizes in particular the importance of the recent adoption of Community legislation on money laundering.

    It approves the principle of setting up a European Drugs Monitoring Centre on the understanding that the practical arrangements for its implementation, e.g. its size, institutional structure and computer systems, are still to be discussed.

    The European Council instructs CELAD to continue work to that end and bring it rapidly to a successful conclusion, in liaison with the Commission and the other relevant political bodies.

    Regarding the fight against international drug trafficking and organized crime, the European Council has agreed on the objectives underlying the German delegation’s proposals as set forth in point B of Annex I and requests the Ministers with responsibility for drugs matters to submit proposals before the European Council’s next meeting in Maastricht.

    The European Council emphasizes the importance of ensuring that Community action is taken in close co-operation with the United Nations Plan for combating drugs.

    External Relations

    At a time when arrangements for its internal reinforcement are under debate in two Conferences, the Community wishes to reaffirm its determination to play an active and open role externally and seek close co-operation with all other international partners, whether bilaterally or multilaterally.

    USSR

    1. The European Council heard the Commission report on the situation in the Soviet Union and specifically on the implementation of the guidelines adopted in Rome on 14 and 15 December 1990. It noted with satisfaction that the necessary decisions have now been adopted for granting food aid amounting to ECU 750 million. Food deliveries have begun.

    With regard to technical assistance, the figure for the 1991 programme (ECU 400 million) and the implementing arrangements with the Soviet authorities have been adopted.

    1. The European Council fully supports the endeavours of the President and the Government of the Soviet Union to accelerate the reforms undertaken and to ease the Soviet Union’s integration into the world economy. It considers that a substantial programme for reorganizing and modernizing the economy is necessary.
    2. Economic and financial co-operation between the USSR and the Community is intended to foster this process. The Community is ready to continue contributing to this venture in the framework of concerted international action. In this context, the European Council requests the Commission to put forward proposals on the amount of technical assistance in 1992.

    The European Council refers to the wish it formulated at its Rome meeting to see the USSR assume its place in international financial institutions. With regard to the EBRD, the European Council reiterates its desire for a revision of the current provisions which restrict the possibility of loans to the Soviet Union.

    1. The European Council invites the Commission – by extension to its Rome II conclusions – to begin exploratory talks on a major agreement between the Community and the USSR covering not only economic questions but political and cultural matters as well.

    European Energy Charter

    The European Council also noted with satisfaction that the proceedings of the negotiating conference for the preparation of a European Energy Charter would open in Brussels on 15 July 1991 with the aim of adopting, by December 1991, a Charter instituting long-term European co-operation in the energy sectors on the basis of equal rights and obligations for the signatory countries.

    Uruguay Round

    The European Council considers the Uruguay Round to be the first priority in international economic relations, and stresses the importance of concluding these negotiations before the end of this year.

    If a balanced agreement covering all areas is to be reached within that period, important policy decisions will have to be taken without delay.

    The European Council calls on the Council and the Commission in its capacity as negotiator to continue their efforts to enable the Uruguay Round to come to a satisfactory conclusion.

    European Economic Area

    The European Council considers that the creation of a European Economic Area is an important component of the future structure of Europe.

    It welcomes the recent decisive progress and fully endorses the two parties’ commitment to overcome the remaining obstacles before 1 August, which would enable the agreement to enter into force on 1 January 1993.

    Central and Eastern Europe

    The European Council welcomes the progress towards political and economic reform in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. It recognizes the positive role played by members of G24 in underpinning structural adjustment and democracy and asks all sides to play a full part in that endeavour. The European Council reaffirms its determination to strengthen the Community’s links with these countries. It notes with satisfaction the progress achieved to date in the negotiations on Association Agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and hopes that these negotiations will culminate in the conclusion of overall agreements before the end of October 1991.

    The European Council hopes that conditions permitting reinforcement of the links between the Community and the Balkan countries will soon obtain.

    Situation in Yugoslavia

    The European Council examined the course of developments in Yugoslavia. It heard a report from the Ministerial Troika on its return from Belgrade and Zaghreb and expressed satisfaction at the results of this mission. However, the European Council remains concerned about the situation in this country and requests the relevant organs of European co-operation to remain seized of this situation and to follow developments closely.

    It took note of the fact that Luxembourg has invoked the emergency mechanism in the CSCE framework in view of the extreme gravity of the situation in Yugoslavia.

    Baltic States

    The European Council expresses its deep concern at the continued acts of intimidation and violence which have taken place in the Baltic States since the events in January, most recently in Vilnius on 26 June.

    The European Council urges the Soviet authorities to put a stop to all such arts and activities, and to ensure that those that have already taken place are fully and impartially investigated. It notes with satisfaction the recent statement of the Soviet President to this effect.

    The European Council against appeals for serious negotiations to be engaged between the Soviet authorities and the three Baltic States with a view to finding a solution which will fulfil the legitimate aspirations of the Baltic peoples.

    Middle East

    The European Council examined the state of play on the Middle East peace process and adopted the declaration in Annex II.

    It discussed the situation in Iraq and adopted the declaration in Annex III.

    Western Sahara

    The European Council noted with satisfaction the progress made in the process of self-determination of Western Sahara, in particular the adoption by the Security Council and the General Assembly of the Secretary-General’s report, as well as the setting up of the UN Mission for the referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). The Community and its Member States will assist in the implementation of the process that is under way.

    The European Council reiterates its support for the persistent efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and his special representative to ensure that the process goes forward smoothly.

    Algeria

    At the initiative of France, the European Council took note of the situation in Algeria and of the Algerian authorities’ request for Community support. It decided on the principle of balance of payments aid, its amount and the arrangements to be settled, on a proposal from the Commission, at the next meeting of the ECOFIN Council.

    Relations with developing countries

    The European Council is determined that the Community should play its full role in improving the economic and social situation of the developing countries. Lome IV, which is due to come into force very soon, and the new assistance and economic co-operation programmes in Asia, Latin America and the Mediterranean countries mark the opening of a new era. The European Council reaffirms its conviction that certain aspects with an important bearing on these relations, such as broader-based democracy, respect for human rights, and economic reform, are bound to develop further.

    Relations with the United States, Canada and Japan

    The relations of the Community and its Member States with the United States and with Canada, which are developing on the basis of the joint declarations signed in November 1990, will continue to play a crucial role in the prosperity and security of the Western world.

    With the same considerations in mind, the European Community wishes to strengthen its links with Japan on the basis of a similar declaration.

    Southern Africa

    The European Council examined the positive developments in South Africa and adopted the declaration in Annex IV.

    The European Council welcomes the South African Government’s decision to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it considers an important contribution to the stability of the region and to the strengthening of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

    The European Council welcomes the positive outcome of the negotiations concerning the peace process and democratisation in Angola and expresses its appreciation for the mediation carried out by Portugal.

    It also hopes that the talks taking place in Rome, under Italian auspices, will lead to an early peaceful settlement of the conflict in Mozambique.

    Human Rights

    The European Council adopted the declaration in Annex V, which should guide the future work of the Community and its Member States.

    Improvement of emergency assistance

    The European Council adopted the declaration in Annex VI.

    Non-proliferation and arms exports

    The European Council adopted the declaration in Annex VII.

    Tropical forests

    The European Council notes with pleasure that the Commission, pursuant to the conclusions of the Dublin European Council, has submitted a proposal, prepared together with the World Bank and in consultation with the Brazilian authorities, on a large-scale pilot project for the preservation of the tropical forest.

    The European Council supports the broad thrust of the project and confirms that the Community’s contribution to the preliminary stage will be US $15 million in financial support, to which contributions from the Member States will be added. It requests the other participants in the London Economic Summit to confirm that they too will contribute.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference at Luxembourg European Council – 29 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference, held in Luxembourg on 29th June 1991.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (John Palmer):

    Prime Minister, on political union, can we take it that what you have said implies that your objection to any extension of qualified majority voting and Parliamentary co-decision save for the environment for example remains an issue of principle; and secondly, I think you said about federalism that most other member states were clear that it meant decentralisation, not centralisation. Can you tell us who you think means by federalism centralisation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you had better ask that of our colleagues, they must answer for themselves and I will answer for me. On the earlier point on qualified majority voting we are still very reserved about how much additional qualified majority voting would be acceptable and co-decision in principle is not something we find at all attractive. There are areas where we can extend the powers of the European Parliament but we are not generally attracted to a legislative role for it.

    QUESTION (Alistair Campbell, Daily Mirror):

    Has it crossed your mind that the initials for ever closer union – ecu – might fit in with if not being tied to federalism certainly being tied to a single currency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is intriguing you should say that, Alistair, no I had not.

    QUESTION:

    Your meeting with Mr Haughey, what did you discuss and was the question of an accelerated strand 1 procedure discussed and the idea of moving to the strand 2 with the Dublin government involved?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That was not discussed, we were essentially discussing European matters in the discussion we had today, we touched upon the present situation of the talks but the talks are continuing in Strand I and we had no proposals to alter the present direction or pace of them.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Telegraph):

    In view of the reserve that you have now placed on EMU are you opposed to the setting of dates for moves to a single currency or not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not a new reserve on EMU, this is the reserve on the principle of the single currency that we have had for some time. There was nothing fresh or new, it was simply a reiteration of the position that existed some time ago and it was expressed so there was no doubt and no misunderstanding in anyone’s mind. So there is nothing new about the reserve.

    As for the dates, I have made it clear for some time that there are two important factors in any progress towards economic and monetary union. It is perfectly acceptable for dates to be set for progress to Stage 2 and Stage 3, but they can only be indicative dates, they cannot be rigid, fixed and firm dates, they can only be indicative and on the basis that the right level of convergence of the economies has been reached. If one were to go forward without such convergence then you would face very real economic difficulties indeed and some member states I think would face such economic difficulties that they would face truly horrendous problems.

    So for us the dates are much less important than the principles and necessity for convergence and at the moment we still maintain our reserve on the principle of the single currency.

    JOHN COLE (BBC):

    Prime Minister, in an earlier draft we saw there was no reference to dates and we were given to understand by some of your colleagues that the prolonged session was an argument as to how that came about. For those who have not seen the final conclusions could you explain what happened?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you think the whole session was taken up in discussing economic and monetary union I can assure there were other matters of some communal interest that took quite a lot of tine as well so it was not all on the subject of economic and monetary union.

    There were a number of earlier drafts; I don’t know which one you may have seen; the drafts are prepared by officials, they go forward, they are refined and eventually the Presidency lays one before colleagues and that is agreed or amended.

    There were a number of important matters and there were amendments made in many parts of the draft laid before us but without seeing the early draft that you have in mind, it is difficult to be precise on the points you raise.

    JOHN COLE:

    But are dates in now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. There are no firm dates in the Conclusions that we have agreed today. There are no firm dates for the progress to economic and monetary union.

    JOHN COLE:

    Not even a reference back to Rome 1?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a reference back to Rome 1 and Rome 2 with the reserve that we expressed at the time of Rome 1 and Rome 2 there is no fresh and separate reiteration of the dates. The reserve, of course, was Rome 1 only, not Rome 2.

    PHILIP STEVENS (FINANCIAL TIMES):

    Why do you think it is, Prime Minister, that the rather sort of friendly, sober discussion of these issues that you spoke about at the Council does not seem to be possible to replicate in the House of Commons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Philip, you should attend the House of Commons more often – it is very friendly and relaxed! It is a serious answer.

    QUESTION:

    From an earlier draft which we saw, there was talk of incorporating into a treaty the point put forward by Chancellor Kohl about a common immigration and asylum policy and one or two other matters in that light. Is that something which has survived? What are your thoughts on it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There ought to be no misunderstanding about precisely what was discussed there. There are two related points:

    There is a considerable degree of economic migrancy from East to West and from South to North and I think the expectation is that that may well continue in years to come. The United Kingdom expressed a view that was endorsed by a large number of countries – indeed I think no-one dissented – that we needed stronger perimeter fencing against that economic migrancy and we are examining that. That may well result in a treaty but it would probably be a treaty outside the Treaty of Rome but within the Union Treaty.

    JUDITH DAWSON (SKY NEWS):

    I wonder if I could ask you to characterise the discussions, particularly on the question of federalism and the question of a single currency? Would you say there were spirited exchanges?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There was very little discussion of the term “federal union”. That is in the chapeau at the moment but it was not a matter that was the subject of any great discussion at all. When we were discussing the Political Union IGC yesterday, I expressed my views on federal union; I said it was not an acceptable term to us and we would expect to see it removed before we had a treaty that we would be in a position to sign. Other colleagues around the table expressed the view that it was true that “federal” had more than one meaning. For example, Judith, if you were to look at the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, you would find five different meanings of “federal union”; if you were to look at the Longer Oxford Dictionary you might even find more; and if you were to look at a dictionary in any other language of the Community, Heaven alone knows how many illustration of that you would find, so that was accepted and there was not a great deal of discussion about it.

    There was not a great deal of discussion about the single currency. There was some discussion about how we framed the Declaration, that is true, but the economic and monetary union discussion was a round-table discussion last evening in which views were particularly invited upon the staging to Stage 2 and Stage 3 and other matters of principle but it was not a particularly extended discussion – it lasted perhaps an hour and a half.

    GERRY FOLEY (TV.AM):

    Prime Minister, you said that with a little bit of goodwill and good luck there was every possibility that you would be able to, all twelve, sign a treaty in December. Where do you see the greatest possibility for compromise and how would you sum up the nature of the negotiations that Britain is going to face over the next couple of months?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think, Gerry, that depends on compromise by whom. Based on the discussions that we have had over the past few days, I think there is no-one in the Community who will not have to compromise in some regard if we are going to successfully get agreement and that is true in most of the principal areas under discussion. It is not the case that all the particular difficulties concentrate in a particular area. The closer you get to it in the substructure, there are all sorts of difficulties for other nations so it will be a tremendous job for the Dutch Presidency; they will have a very large job to do between now and December but I think it is in good hands with the Dutch and I think that there is a considerable will amongst European Community partners to try and reach an agreement.

    ROBIN OAKLEY (THE TIMES):

    Prime Minister, you say that you will never sign a treaty including references to federal union. Does the same apply to any treaty giving the European Parliament power to initiate legislation in any field and could I ask you secondly whether there was much comment on the change of style and tone in Europe since you became Prime Minister? Can you point to any practical concession that you feel you have made as an evidence of your eagerness to put Britain at the heart of Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The European Parliament can call for legislation now and I think there are areas where it is appropriate to increase the powers of the European Parliament and I spoke of some of those earlier. Other partners in the Community have other suggestions as to where those powers can be increased so I think there will be changes in the way in which the European Parliament operates but I would not myself expect that they are going to involve substantial initiation of legislation powers.

    As to the second half of the question in terms of putting Britain right in the centre of Europe, I think the mark of a good European is a country that will put itself in the middle of the debate and argue for what it sees as the right way ahead for Europe, not necessarily argue for the consensus that previously existed and what I am doing and will continue to do is to argue for what I think is the right future for Europe in both the medium and the long term and that does mean we have to look not just at the deepening of relationship between the existing Community structures but that in bringing about that deepening we don’t throw such a girdle around the Community that we prevent its widening at a future stage. That is what I mean by being a good European.

    The other illustration perhaps I may give is this: it is not possible in a partnership of at present twelve and in the future more, always on each and every point to win the argument and have the result go precisely as you would wish it to. Sometimes you will win and you will gain something that your partners don’t wish to surrender; sometimes you will have to surrender something that your partners wish to gain that you don’t wish to give up. That is a matter of negotiation and that repeatedly has happened in the Community; it will happen again in the Community; there is nothing fresh about it but equally, there is nothing fresh about the fact that upon some subjects there will be a national reserve of such importance that the nation concerned will not be able to move and as in the past it will be so in the future – the partners of that nation, I believe, will understand that.

    QUESTION (THE OBSERVER):

    Could you tell me exactly how likely now you think it is that Britain will be able to sign up at the end of the year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I see no reason to suppose at the end of this European Council that it is any further away than it was when we came to this European Council. We have made a good deal of progress over the last few months. In particular, many of the matters that we particularly wished to be discussed have now come very much to the front of the Community’s collective minds: convergence, for example, in terms of economic and monetary union springs immediately to mind, we are by no means the only nation in the Community who have reservations on the scale of co-decision that was set out in the Presidency’s text, so as we move forward the areas of difference that are apparent narrow. That has been the way the Community has always operated and I think it is operating in that way now. There is a natural process that pulls partners together as you get nearer the dates by which a conclusion must be reached. That is starting but six months is a long time in the life of the Community – it still has some way to go. I am optimistic.

    BORIS JOHNSON (DAILY TELEGRAPH):

    Did the Government push for anything to be included in the communique about the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which after all represents the preponderant part of Community spending and if not, why not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We were predominantly discussing the Inter-Governmental Conferences; there were many Community matters that we did not particularly discuss yesterday and today. The question of GATT was discussed and that has a clear relationship to the Common Agricultural Policy. There is, I think, a growing view in the Community now, if not perhaps entirely general, that we will need to reform the Common Agricultural Policy yet again; there is absolutely no doubt about that. It was not necessary for me to restate it or for others to include it particularly. If we had all included everything that isn’t in this communique that might have been, I daresay the communique would have been two or three times as long as it is, but it was not a subject of substantial discussion; it was not on the agenda this week-end and therefore it is not included in the communique.

    BORIS JOHNSON:

    Do you think there is a case for a special Summit to discuss it, Prime Minister, in view of the importance of the issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly would not rule out a meeting at some stage but I think it is premature to say that we would have a special Summit to discuss it. There are some proposals that the Agricultural commissioner has produced; I believe some nations, not the British as it happens, have expressed reservations about these fresh proposals that have been published. They will need to be discussed by Agriculture Ministers in the first instance and then it may be they will need to be discussed by others but I think we had better let our Agriculture Ministers look at it first.

    JOHN McINTYRE:

    On the Social Charter, an earlier text that we saw suggested something much more friendly to the British than we might have expected. Do you believe that you have made some progress on this issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is some misunderstanding of the British view about the social dimension of the Community. There is a social dimension to the Community and under the broad Social Action Programme I think there are round about 50 different Directives that are important – a number of them have already been agreed. There are some that are not agreed and that it will be very difficult to agree but the reason it will be difficult to agree I think is one that will be understood throughout the whole Community.

    What is the prime purpose of the Social Action Programme? It must be, I believe, to increase the levels of employment and diminish the levels of unemployment and the areas of greatest controversy in the Social Action Programme are those where on practical economic grounds we believe that what is proposed would work in the reverse direction and cost jobs and not create jobs.

    If I may refer to my answer some moments ago to Robin Oakley, I think it is right to argue for what is in the interests of the Community, not what happens at any one time to be a consensus view in the Community and upon that basis I will continue to argue against those parts of the Social Action Programme that I think are damaging to Europe.

  • Mr Major’s Statement at Luxembourg European Council – 29 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement at the Luxembourg European Council meeting on 29th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have seen again with this Council the Community’s capacity to act in agreement at the time of an international crisis. In April we took a decision to set up safe havens in Iraq, yesterday we decided to put Yugoslavia at the top of our agenda. As you all know, the Troika returned here this morning and reported to us. We have invoked the emergency procedures of the CSCE to provide a framework in which dialogue can take place but the situation in Yugoslavia is and remains very fragile indeed.

    Jacques Santer has provided excellent chairmanship throughout this meeting, as indeed have he and his Luxembourg colleagues throughout the six months of what I believe can be seen as a very successful Presidency. A great deal of progress has been made, made in both the inter-governmental conferences and the careful preparation for this particular meeting has clearly paid off. Prime Minister Santer has himself visited London twice and in preparation for this Council I had preliminary meetings, substantial preliminary meetings with President Mitterrand. Chancellor Kohl, Mr Lubbers, Sr Gonzales, Mr Haughey, as well as conversations with other colleagues. And I saw both Mr Lubbers and Chancellor Kohl again yesterday morning.

    This European Council was a stock-taking European Council. It was not the occasion to take decisions but we have registered the very considerable progress made in the Luxembourg Presidency and we are all aiming to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December.

    The text of the conclusions, which I imagine you will now have seen, incorporates a number of points of importance to the United Kingdom. Firstly, I made clear that I welcomed the structure of the present draft of the treaty, that is to say the three pillared approach which means that some things are done on the basis of Community treaties and others on the basis of intergovernmental action outside the Treaty of Rome and the competence of the Commission, but within the framework of the union.

    I welcomed also the concept of a common foreign and security policy set firmly in the context of the Atlantic Alliance. There is also agreement on the preparation of proposals to improve the implementation of Community law and that reflects particularly a British proposal, a proposal that will enable the European Court of Justice to fine member states who fail to comply with Community legislation. We have argued for a long time for a level playing field and for full respect of the rule of law and we are determined to get it in this treaty.

    The conclusions also give new impetus to the single market which has always been a very high priority for us. They cover issues such as insurance, air, sea and road transport. They also contain in the conclusions a very strong reference to strengthening the Community’s links with the countries of central and Eastern Europe.

    I made perfectly clear in our discussions that there were things in the present draft treaty with which I could not agree and it was understood that nothing can be agreed until everything is agreed, hopefully by the time we have concluded our meeting at Maastricht in December.
    On the political union IGC I explained that federal union was a term capable of misunderstanding. We will insist on its removal before we are able to sign any treaty in December. Most of our partners interpret it as decentralisation rather than centralisation but in any treaty we have to be clear what we mean. It would therefore be far better to use the term in the original Treaty of Rome – ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.

    We looked in depth in our discussions at the role of the European Parliament. I explained our view that there are a number of areas where the authority of the European Parliament should be increased, including audit of expenditure, control over the Commission and the appointment of a European ombudsman. But I said that the present proposals for co-decision about the European Parliament were not proposals that we could accept. Apart from the basic issue of whether or not we want co-decision, the complicated conciliation procedures in the present Presidency text are not a way of giving the European Parliament a satisfactory role or of improving Community decision-taking. All that will have to be looked at further in detail before we get to Maastricht.

    In the discussion on economic and monetary union, I made it clear that we still wish to maintain our firm reserve on a single currency and a single central bank. We need to be clear about the importance of economic convergence before any of us could take the considerable economic risk of moving either to Stage 2 or to Stage 3. And I again explained that one of the advantages of Britain’s proposal for a hard Ecu is that it would allow that convergence to take place and for a single currency to emerge because it made economic sense, not regardless of whether it made economic sense. So the issue of hardening the Ecu is a very current one and will be pursued further in ECOFIN.

    The Council has agreed a text on human rights, a British initiative, and the first such declaration ever adopted by the European Council. That text affirms our determination to use the community’s influence to promote human rights through the economic and cooperation agreements that we make as a Community with third countries. We welcomed also in the declaration the abolition in South Africa of the Land Acts, the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act and have declared our support for the renewal of sporting links with South Africa on a case by case basis where unified and non-racial sporting bodies have been established. We have also welcomed South Africa’s adherence of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a significant gain for which we have been working for some time.

    We have also condemned the attempt by Iraq not to reveal nuclear equipment held by Iraq and which has to be removed under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. The Community has also endorsed a British and German initiative to improve the coordination of disaster relief within the United Nations system. I think this is an important initiative, it would involve the appointment of a high level coordinator who would pull together the whole disaster relief operation and have direct access to emergency funding.

    Our discussion has also looked forward to the Economic Summit which I will be chairing in London in a fortnight’s time. We have urged a conclusion in the GATT round before the end of this year, we have given an impetus to non-proliferation of weapons of all kinds, the Council endorsed also an initiative which I took in April to establish a United Nations register of conventional arms transfers and we will together table a draft resolution on this at the UN General Assembly. Over the dinner we had last evening, we discussed our approach to President Gorbachev’s visit to London. Both in our analysis of what is happening in the Soviet Union and in our assessment of what we can do to help, our positions in the Community are very close.

    I believe in summary that this European Council has shown the Community working as it should, we faced up to the crisis in Yugoslavia, we have dealt with our own business in a friendly and businesslike way, looking for solutions. I have no doubt there are still difficult negotiations to come but I think the Dutch will start their Presidency knowing that everyone in the Community wants to reach agreement by the end of the year. With good luck and goodwill I hope and believe that can be done.

  • Mr Major’s Statement at Luxembourg European Council – 29 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement at the Luxembourg European Council meeting on 29th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have seen again with this Council the Community’s capacity to act in agreement at the time of an international crisis. In April we took a decision to set up safe havens in Iraq, yesterday we decided to put Yugoslavia at the top of our agenda. As you all know, the Troika returned here this morning and reported to us. We have invoked the emergency procedures of the CSCE to provide a framework in which dialogue can take place but the situation in Yugoslavia is and remains very fragile indeed.

    Jacques Santer has provided excellent chairmanship throughout this meeting, as indeed have he and his Luxembourg colleagues throughout the six months of what I believe can be seen as a very successful Presidency. A great deal of progress has been made, made in both the inter-governmental conferences and the careful preparation for this particular meeting has clearly paid off. Prime Minister Santer has himself visited London twice and in preparation for this Council I had preliminary meetings, substantial preliminary meetings with President Mitterrand. Chancellor Kohl, Mr Lubbers, Sr Gonzales, Mr Haughey, as well as conversations with other colleagues. And I saw both Mr Lubbers and Chancellor Kohl again yesterday morning.

    This European Council was a stock-taking European Council. It was not the occasion to take decisions but we have registered the very considerable progress made in the Luxembourg Presidency and we are all aiming to reach an agreement at Maastricht in December.

    The text of the conclusions, which I imagine you will now have seen, incorporates a number of points of importance to the United Kingdom. Firstly, I made clear that I welcomed the structure of the present draft of the treaty, that is to say the three pillared approach which means that some things are done on the basis of Community treaties and others on the basis of intergovernmental action outside the Treaty of Rome and the competence of the Commission, but within the framework of the union.

    I welcomed also the concept of a common foreign and security policy set firmly in the context of the Atlantic Alliance. There is also agreement on the preparation of proposals to improve the implementation of Community law and that reflects particularly a British proposal, a proposal that will enable the European Court of Justice to fine member states who fail to comply with Community legislation. We have argued for a long time for a level playing field and for full respect of the rule of law and we are determined to get it in this treaty.

    The conclusions also give new impetus to the single market which has always been a very high priority for us. They cover issues such as insurance, air, sea and road transport. They also contain in the conclusions a very strong reference to strengthening the Community’s links with the countries of central and Eastern Europe.

    I made perfectly clear in our discussions that there were things in the present draft treaty with which I could not agree and it was understood that nothing can be agreed until everything is agreed, hopefully by the time we have concluded our meeting at Maastricht in December.
    On the political union IGC I explained that federal union was a term capable of misunderstanding. We will insist on its removal before we are able to sign any treaty in December. Most of our partners interpret it as decentralisation rather than centralisation but in any treaty we have to be clear what we mean. It would therefore be far better to use the term in the original Treaty of Rome – ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.

    We looked in depth in our discussions at the role of the European Parliament. I explained our view that there are a number of areas where the authority of the European Parliament should be increased, including audit of expenditure, control over the Commission and the appointment of a European ombudsman. But I said that the present proposals for co-decision about the European Parliament were not proposals that we could accept. Apart from the basic issue of whether or not we want co-decision, the complicated conciliation procedures in the present Presidency text are not a way of giving the European Parliament a satisfactory role or of improving Community decision-taking. All that will have to be looked at further in detail before we get to Maastricht.

    In the discussion on economic and monetary union, I made it clear that we still wish to maintain our firm reserve on a single currency and a single central bank. We need to be clear about the importance of economic convergence before any of us could take the considerable economic risk of moving either to Stage 2 or to Stage 3. And I again explained that one of the advantages of Britain’s proposal for a hard Ecu is that it would allow that convergence to take place and for a single currency to emerge because it made economic sense, not regardless of whether it made economic sense. So the issue of hardening the Ecu is a very current one and will be pursued further in ECOFIN.

    The Council has agreed a text on human rights, a British initiative, and the first such declaration ever adopted by the European Council. That text affirms our determination to use the community’s influence to promote human rights through the economic and cooperation agreements that we make as a Community with third countries. We welcomed also in the declaration the abolition in South Africa of the Land Acts, the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act and have declared our support for the renewal of sporting links with South Africa on a case by case basis where unified and non-racial sporting bodies have been established. We have also welcomed South Africa’s adherence of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a significant gain for which we have been working for some time.

    We have also condemned the attempt by Iraq not to reveal nuclear equipment held by Iraq and which has to be removed under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. The Community has also endorsed a British and German initiative to improve the coordination of disaster relief within the United Nations system. I think this is an important initiative, it would involve the appointment of a high level coordinator who would pull together the whole disaster relief operation and have direct access to emergency funding.

    Our discussion has also looked forward to the Economic Summit which I will be chairing in London in a fortnight’s time. We have urged a conclusion in the GATT round before the end of this year, we have given an impetus to non-proliferation of weapons of all kinds, the Council endorsed also an initiative which I took in April to establish a United Nations register of conventional arms transfers and we will together table a draft resolution on this at the UN General Assembly. Over the dinner we had last evening, we discussed our approach to President Gorbachev’s visit to London. Both in our analysis of what is happening in the Soviet Union and in our assessment of what we can do to help, our positions in the Community are very close.

    I believe in summary that this European Council has shown the Community working as it should, we faced up to the crisis in Yugoslavia, we have dealt with our own business in a friendly and businesslike way, looking for solutions. I have no doubt there are still difficult negotiations to come but I think the Dutch will start their Presidency knowing that everyone in the Community wants to reach agreement by the end of the year. With good luck and goodwill I hope and believe that can be done.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at 1991 Welsh Conservative Party Conference – 14 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1991 Welsh Conservative Party Conference in Swansea on Friday 14th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is my first opportunity to speak to the Welsh Conference as Prime Minister. I look forward with pleasure to many more. The Conservative Party is giving a clear lead in Wales, setting the agenda for all the other parties. Much of the credit for that goes to David Hunt and his team. They are doing a superb job. I am lucky to have them. And so is Wales.

    Their work and their commitment makes me even more determined to lead this Party forward in Wales. Not only to win back Monmouth, Brecon and Radnor and Ynys Mon. But to take other seats as well. And, with your help, when the day comes we will achieve it.

    In politics – as in life – it is easy to miss the turning-points. Only afterwards are we able to say: this was when it was clear the struggle was being won. This was when determination, grit and patience began to yield their rewards.

    I believe, right now, that we are at one of those turning-points. For we have seen, over the past week, an unmistakeable advance in this country’s toughest economic battle – against inflation. We learnt in the 1980s how easily it can counter-attack against economic prosperity. And we know how painful it can be to force it back again.

    Over eighteen months ago as Chancellor my first action was to set a course against inflation. So I take particular pleasure in the signs of success we are now seeing. It is not merely that the all-important inflation headline has fallen sharply this week – and is now down over five percentage points since last autumn’s peak. Today’s figure is an encouraging 5.8 per cent.

    But more important is what this week’s figures say for the future. New realism in pay bargaining, which has brought the average increase down sharply this spring. And a new flexibility and variety in settlements. At the same time we have seen long-awaited evidence of a slowdown in price increases charged at the factory gate.

    The message of this week’s figures is of real success. On any sensible measure, underlying inflation is coming down. We are coming into line with the best of Europe. We are learning how to compete, and to win. And we can be more confident still that our forecast for the end of this year – an inflation rate of only 4 per cent – will be met. And it will fall further next year. It has been a hard battle against inflation, fought during a world recession. But the news this week shows that we are succeeding.

    Six months ago, three urgent tasks faced us:

    – to prepare for a possible Gulf War and to steer Britain through whatever crisis arose;

    – to sort out what seemed then to be the insoluble problems of local government finance, and;

    – to reverse rising inflation and interest rates and set the economy back on the road to recovery.

    GULF WAR

    It did come to war in the Gulf despite all our efforts. In that war our Armed Forces, including many young men and women from Wales, performed superbly. They were well armed, well trained and well supported. We can be proud of what they did – and how they did it.

    But now there are some who argue for concessions to be made to Iraq. I am not among them. So long as Saddam Hussein stays in power, we will maintain our firm line. We will veto any UN resolution to drop sanctions on Iraq. In the last six months we have driven Saddam out of Kuwait. His weapons of mass destruction are being destroyed. Of course he will lie and cheat – he is doing. But we will dog his footsteps. By whatever means it takes we will not allow Iraq to rebuild its nuclear, biological and chemical arsenal. So there should be no doubt. Iraq cannot return to the international community of nations white Saddam Hussein remains in control.

    At the war’s end, when we saw the tragedy of the Kurds unfolding, it was Britain who took the initiative to help them. Again, some derided our efforts to bring help to the Kurds. But we continued to press our “safe havens” proposal. And first the European, then the whole international community accepted our ideas. The ‘safe havens’ were established and a human tragedy of enormous proportions was avoided. We can be proud that it was Britain that took the lead in bringing support to the Kurds.

    COUNCIL TAX

    Meanwhile, at home we were tackling a second acute problem that faced us last November. To cut through the divisive problems of local government finance.

    Norman Lamont’s reforming Budget dramatically eased the burden of payment on local taxpayers. It made a £140 cut in headline charges. And gave extra help where it was most needed.

    Then, in April, we published detailed proposals for a new Council Tax. It avoids the disaster of a return to the rates against which this Party rightly campaigned for so long. We are now converting our plans into legislation for the very next Session of Parliament, while Labour are still floundering, trying to fathom out just how their unrealistic rates policy will work.

    COMING OUT OF RECESSION

    The third great task we faced last November was to lead Britain out of the world recession. That recession is not unique to this country. It has hit economies as strong as the United States and as far apart as Canada and Australia. But as we come out of recession, we need to look to the future. We need a stable framework for the 1990s that will keep inflation down so that the problems of the last two years will never occur again.

    That is why last autumn we took Britain into the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Since then we have had five cuts in interest rates in just seven months. We have lowered interest rates by 3 per cent from their peak last autumn.

    A STRONGER ECONOMY IN WALES

    We are now reaping the rewards that flow from co-operation in Europe. No-one in Wales should need convincing of that. Our central role in Europe has been the prime reason for the massive flow of foreign investment into Wales over the last 12 years. In that time we have set out a new course for Wales, reversed its decline, and opened new prospects for the future.

    In doing so, it has not been the State on which we have relied. It is the choices and ambitions of millions of men and women that lead our country forward. The Conservative Party stands for variety and for independent action. In that it is akin to the natural instincts of the Welsh. The cultural, religious and practical inheritance of Wales bring a special quality to the character of the United Kingdom. We have done much to nurture the Welsh language and sustain Welsh traditions. We have swept away attitudes that patronised Wales, and brought new life to the Welsh economy. Where once it was dependent on old and declining industries, it now has new industries, new confidence, and jobs with a long-term future. It offers wider opportunities to its young people than ever before.

    In Wales we have also seen a revolution in investment. Companies from around the world have been attracted here. Bosch from Germany, Delanair from France, Matsushita, Toyota and Sony from Japan among many others. I tell you this. None of those companies would have come here if we had stood outside the European Community, as Neil Kinnock himself demanded we should, year after year until he became Leader of his Party.

    This investment drive continues. Take just the last few weeks. At Bridgend Sony, backed by Government support, creating some 1,400 jobs in television and computer display. And in the same period the 50th and 51st German-backed companies investing in Wales. Nine important new job announcements were made in Wales in May – with more to come in the pipeline. In the last financial year alone nearly 70 investment projects from overseas have been announced in Wales, totalling almost £300 million and creating or safeguarding over 8,500 jobs.

    I know that the recession has pressed hard on businesses – large and small – in Wales. But I also know that Wales is now in a stronger position than ever before to confront it. It is sought out as an investment base more today than at any time in history. This Government can be proud of that.

    Government support for Wales goes much further than promoting inward investment. Remember the unnecessary delay and obstruction over the planned Cardiff Bay barrage? How typical it was of many in the Welsh Labour Party to complain about job losses in Wales and then hold up a project to create 25,000 jobs. The very day after their members had filibustered for hours in the House of Commons to block new opportunities for 25,000 people, Labour had the sheer effrontery to launch a bogus policy document called ‘Opportunity Britain’.

    But we were not prepared to let Wales be filibustered. So we stepped in and gave full backing to the Cardiff Bay project. We will now make sure, through our own Government Bill, that the Cardiff Barrage and the thousands of jobs it will create will go ahead. And so will the housing for people on low incomes, many elderly and disabled, that go with this scheme.

    When we look at the progress made since 1979 in Wales as elsewhere, we see a picture of a nation transformed. There are three reasons for this.

    The determination and skills of a whole generation of people.

    The leadership in Wales that Peter Walker and David Hunt have given. That has been outstanding. They have fought to open up new opportunities for Welsh business and families. As a result more people than ever before now have homes, savings, shares, pensions. They have a stake in the present and the future. Many of them didn’t dream that was possible in the 1970s. Now it’s an everyday reality.

    EUROPE

    But the third reason for Wales’ revival has been our membership of the European Community.

    I have said before that I want to see Britain at the heart of Europe. A Europe which has seen, over the past two years, historic changes. A Europe in which the barriers of half a century have broken down. A new and wider Europe of free nations.

    Throughout the twentieth century, Europe has inflicted its worst wounds on itself. Now we must ensure that the years of division and hostility are finally put behind us.

    To secure our future, we need not abandon our past. Or accept the imposition of uniformity on the nation states of Europe. But we must not – cannot – turn our backs on the construction of the new Europe. That is where our history points; and our interest lies.

    There have been times, in our island story, when we have turned aside from Europe. But we have always been drawn back to Europe. There are still those, today, who argue that Britain should step off our chosen path. They seem to believe that Harold Macmillan was wrong to make our first application to join the European Community. That Ted Heath’s government was wrong to sign the Treaty of Rome. That the British people were wrong to vote overwhelmingly for Britain in Europe. And that Margaret Thatcher’s government was wrong to sign the Single European Act. I do not share those views. Sulking on the fringe of talks about the destiny of Europe cannot be the right role for Britain. Europe is not a battle between “them” and “us”. It is our continent, too.

    Of course, there are frustrations in membership of the European Community. Things on which one member will disagree with another. Things we fail to get right. But the opportunities dwarf the disappointments. We have gained much; we can hope to gain more from membership of a thriving Europe.

    There are people, of course, who readily admit we need a place in Europe, but suggest we might leave the Community for EFTA. What an irony, when so many EFTA countries are preparing themselves for membership of the Community. Indeed, this very morning Sweden announced its application to join. They want to be at Europe’s top table – where we already enjoy our rightful place. What a folly it would be to leave a party in full swing, to join one whose other guests are departing.

    In years to come, the European Community will have far more members than it has today. It must be in our interest to be an architect of that wider Europe.

    Our presence in the Community has helped to shape its development so far. Britain’s free market principles have been a powerful force for good. The single market, free of national barriers, will be the clearest expression of our contribution in Europe.

    And these same principles govern our approach to the Community’s long term objective. An objective formally approved by our Conservative Government in 1985, in the preamble to the Single European Act: the progressive realisation of economic and monetary union in Europe.

    For we bring another distinctive contribution to the European debate: a habit of asking how ideas will work in practice. A habit of subjecting them to hard-headed tests of their effect on our freedom and prosperity. That is the contribution we are making, yet again, to the current – critical – negotiations on the future of the Community. There are inevitably some faint hearts who think the outcome of these negotiations is bound to be bad for this country. I am not among them. And for good reason. We are negotiating vigorously. Positively. Clear in our aims, and confident of our position.

    Let me make one thing quite clear. There can be no change in the Treaty of Rome taking us towards economic and monetary union unless all members – Britain included – agree. We could say no. If we cannot find common ground, we may have to say no. And if necessary we will. But no-one should imagine that our European partners would simply abandon their ideas. That Europe would remain fixed in aspic. Or that we could insulate ourselves from the effect of what the rest of the Community decided to do.

    I do not intend to let Britain be sidelined. The potential damage to our trade, to the City of London and to our future prospects would be immense. Moreover, the rest of Europe does not want to sideline us. We all want to find common ground. There has been much talk recently of offers and compromises. But we are not interested in a fudge – in the kind of waffle we have heard from Neil Kinnock on Europe. So let me make the Government’s position clear.

    I will not agree to a treaty on economic and monetary union unless it is practical and workable. It would not be in our interests, or in the interests of our partners, to endorse economic nonsense.

    I will not put to the House of Commons a treaty unless I believe it conforms with our free market principles, and unless I believe it is in the interests of Britain to sign.

    I support the idea of a common currency, which all Europeans could use if they wish. But I am wholly opposed to the imposition of a single currency.

    I am not alone in Europe in my appreciation of how economically damaging it would be to put widely divergent economies into the straitjacket of a single currency. Act in haste; repent not at leisure, but in failure. I believe the whole European Community will come to see the need for caution.

    But I do not rely solely on this belief. I will promise you one thing more. We may, by the end of this year, have before us a treaty. A treaty that could, amongst other things, allow Europe to develop a single currency at some time in the future. If so, such a treaty would have to contain the following clear provision. The British Government and the British Parliament would only move to a single currency if they took a further, separate and explicit decision to do so. Not just when to do so. But whether to do so at all.

    That is a question that would not arise in this parliament. It might not even arise in the next parliament. But if or when it arose, it would be for Parliament to decide. Parliament will not be committed in advance. In no circumstances will I agree a treaty which does not contain that safeguard. Of course, that safeguard is not all we require. I have spelt out today a number of other important considerations. In long and complex negotiations, many issues arise.

    I believe the interests of this country lie in negotiating toughly and forcefully. Europe’s aim must be to achieve a treaty on which all can agree. This may not prove possible. But for my part, I believe the chances of successful negotiation are greater if it is clear where we stand.

    So, as you would expect of us, this Government will do what is right for the future of Britain. And I know that this Government and only this Government is capable of completing these negotiations and building the new Europe in the way that our country needs. So we intend to lead this country through to the conclusion of these talks later this year. That is my position. That is the Government’s position. That is the Conservative Party’s position. That is where we stand.

    LABOUR’S KEBABBLE

    Mr Chairman, I have today set out our position on Europe and set it out clearly. Just compare that with the sheer babble we heard from Mr Kinnock earlier this week when he was asked to explain where Labour stood. He claimed that there was “real understanding” of his ideas among European Socialists. Frankly, if they understand that, they’ll understand anything.

    Of course, Mr Kinnock never likes being asked to explain what Labour’s policies are. He calls it being “kebabbed”. Do you remember? When he refused to go on with an interview because he didn’t like the questions. Mr Kinnock was kebabbed alright on Europe this week. And his Euro-kebabble can’t hide the absence of a policy. He should be under no illusions. Over the next few months we’re going to put the search-light on Labour and expose Kinnock’s kebabble, not only on Europe but on every other issue as well.

    SOCIALISM – THE ROAD TO NOWHERE

    For there is only one thing that could stop the progress Britain has made over the last 12 years. A Labour Government. And that would do worse than stop progress. It would reverse it.

    Just remember. Year after year through the 1980s, Labour opposed all our advances for the people of Britain. They were against lower taxation. Against home ownership. Against denationalisation and better public services. Opposed to the right to buy shares in privatised companies. Against rights for parents in schools. Against help for savings and personal pensions. Against the hope and the independence that millions of people yearned for under the bankrupt Labour Governments of the ‘70s.

    Throughout the last 12 years Labour have fought and fought and fought again, against a better future for the people of this country.

    Labour have one constant criticism of us. Whatever the issue, whatever the problem, whatever the Department, they say we don’t spend enough of your money. It might have been Wilfred Pickles’ approach to politics. Do you remember? “Give ‘em the money, Mabel”. You name it; spend more on it. That’s Labour’s approach.

    But promises have to be paid for. And people are rightly afraid that under Labour their spending commitments would mean bigger tax bills. Labour don’t have the honesty to admit that. Instead they send John Smith out into the Boardrooms of the City to say that all those spending plans can be discounted. They promise the public they’ll spend. They promise the City they won’t. That’s what Labour call Public Relations. It’s what most people call public deceit.

    It’s the same on economic management overall. Labour seem to think it is possible to run the economy by giving everyone everything they want whenever they ask for it. Pay rises. Interest rate cuts. Spending increases. They will give you whatever you want. You name it. You can have it. All at the same time. As a result Labour have no credible policy on the economy at all. None on inflation. None on unemployment. None on investment. None on growth.

    But Labour’s policies do mean something. They mean a pay explosion, a huge increase in public spending, a surge in taxes, an increase in borrowing, a loss of confidence in our currency. Glad, confident morning would be followed by growing misery, devaluation, rising interest and mortgage rates for all. ‘Vote now, pay later’ is the essence of Labour’s plans.

    And there is one other basic truth about Labour Government which has not changed. Labour Government would be trade union government. The two are indivisible.

    Just consider some of Labour’s so-called new policies. The green light to flying pickets. Secondary action in industrial disputes. New life for the closed shop. A minimum wage that would destroy up to 2 million jobs. Labour say they have changed. But who is calling the shots when it comes to Labour policy?

    Who wants to scrap competitive tendering and waste money on direct labour in Councils and hospitals more than Rodney Bickerstaffe and the National Executive of NUPE?

    Who wants to bring in a National Minimum Wage more than Ron Todd and the National Executive of the TGWU?

    Who wants a National Economic Assessment, in which trade unions would parcel out the nation’s resources, more than John Edmonds and the General Council of the TUC?

    So whose policies are they really?

    Behind the Shadow Cabinet loom bigger shadows still – the big brothers at the TUC. In a Labour Britain they would be eased back into Downing Street faster and even more conspicuously than Neil Kinnock’s wardrobe.

    What does Labour’s National Economic Assessment mean? I’ll tell you. It means a glitzy gloss on meddling by trade union bosses. It means the elected Government surrendering its responsibility to unelected union bosses. Of this you can be sure. Just so long as the trade unions go on paying for the Labour Party, a Labour Government would go on paying off the unions.

    Mr Chairman, our duty in this Conservative Party is to stop there ever being a Socialist Government. Not just this year. Not just next year. Not just in 5 years’ time. But for good. For the hard-learned lesson of the twentieth century is this. Freedom, free enterprise, personal independence and wider ownership are the roots to richer, more inventive, more varied societies. Socialism is the road to nowhere. And it is on the road to nowhere that we will ensure the Labour Party stays.

    THE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH

    Our approach is far different from Labour’s. People say to me: ‘You cannot cut tax and improve public services’. But we have. We have. We have shown over the last twelve years how wrong these people are. Cutting income tax by record amounts, but spending far more than any Government before on improvements in health. Cutting back taxation on companies, but spending more per pupil on education than any Government before. Sweeping away the last Labour Government’s taxes on jobs, but committing billions of pounds to new roads, railways and hospitals.

    We will continue that work in the 1990s. And as we do I want us to concentrate, not simply, as Labour do, on what we spend, but on what we deliver for the money that we provide. That is why we are developing right across Government our Citizens’ Charter programme. The Charter initiative will bring new pride to those who work in public services, and still higher quality for those who use them.

    The 1980s were a decade of Government achievement. But we can’t stand still now. The world has moved on and so must we. So we are developing new policies. And improving familiar ones.

    Things will be different in the 1990s as we build on the bedrock of the last decade. It will be an era in which we develop further the wider competition, the choice, and the personal opportunities we have brought in in the 1980s. But it will also be an era in which we extend a helping hand to those still not aware of, or still not able, to take the opportunities that Conservative policies bring. A helping hand to help people up. That is our way.

    Our distinctive Toryism is the polar opposite of Socialism. It rejects their policies based on envy. It rejects their attitudes which foment class division. For our belief – our Tory belief – grows from the commonsense instincts of the British. From their fairmindedness, their sense of what is right and their sense of obligations to other people. It builds on the instinctive friendliness of our people. It seeks to unite, and not to divide. I want no barriers in my Party. And no barriers in our country either.

    I want our Tory approach to strike a common chord with all generations – a Toryism based on the liberal free market but sensitive to individual needs. A Toryism that stands for a stable way of life rooted in decency. For the breaking open of closed doors in our society, whatever or wherever they may be. For a culture of generosity, public and private; respect for the contributions and opinions of others; and pride in our great national institutions. For making it easier for everyone to build up something to call their own and to pass it on to their children and those after them. For all those values that, as I believe, go to create a nation that is sure in its aims and at ease with itself. We want a Toryism that encourages and does not threaten. That is as relevant in the high rise housing estate as by the village pond.

    I want to build a nation that can put hesitation and self-doubt aside. A nation that will act confidently in the world. That will accept its obligations and defend its rights. I stand for a strong, independent Britain playing a positive part in building a better and wider Europe. And playing its part, too, as a cornerstone of NATO in the defence of peace and security.

    Only a Conservative Government can build and sustain such a nation. And together we must fight to ensure that it is a Conservative Government that leads our country through the 1990s and beyond.

  • PMQT – 13 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Amess : Does my right hon. Friend agree with many of my constituents in Basildon that although the Labour party talked about European reform when it was in power, it achieved nothing? Will my right hon. Friend continue to negotiate in the interests of this country within the European Community, as we have done so successfully in the past?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The budget rebate negotiated by the present Government was very welcome. Nothing whatever in terms of budget rebates was negotiated by the predecessor Government. I believe strongly that it is in our national interest to negotiate within Europe and to reach a conclusion that will enable the whole Community to go forward together. That clearly is the best prize for us and for the Community, and it is what we will seek to achieve.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is not it now clear that rising unemployment and deep recession provide the most accurate definition of Majorism?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am as concerned about getting unemployment down as anyone else in the House. The way in which to get unemployment down is to ensure that we get on top of inflation, as we are, and that wage demands and settlements begin to come down, as they are, so that the economy can yet again begin to grow. In the period of Conservative Government, there has been a great increase in the number of people in work and increasingly, as inflation falls, that will return to being the case.

    Mr. Kinnock : Today’s figures are the worst May unemployment figures on record and they are the direct result of the Prime Minister’s policies. Faced with that, is he still willing to say to the 2.25 million people who are now without jobs that their unemployment is a price worth paying?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should stop using the unemployed as political pawns– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : He does so not only in the way in which he conducts his politics, but in the way in which he frames his policies. He knows that Labour’s job tax would cost more jobs, he knows that the social action programme that Labour supports would cost more jobs, he knows that Labour’s strikers’ charter would cost more jobs and he knows that Labour’s minimum wage would cost more jobs. He is the last person in the House to lecture about unemployment.

    Mr. Kinnock : In the six months since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, unemployment– [Interruption.] I know that the Government do not want to hear about unemployment, but in the six months since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, unemployment in the United Kingdom has gone up by half a million. Is it not obvious that that is the true price of Majorism? It is a price not worth paying.

    The Prime Minister : In the six months since I became Prime Minister, the inflation rate has fallen from 10.9 to 6.4 per cent., interest rates have fallen from 15 to 11.5 per cent. and, as the right hon. Gentleman should know, unemployment in his constituency is 38 per cent. lower than it was at the last election.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Maureen Hicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mrs. Hicks : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under his leadership, the London economic summit will be an excellent opportunity to give impetus to the political and economic reforms of the Soviet Union?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with that proposition. Yesterday I had the opportunity to discuss the reforms in the Soviet Union with the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, and an extremely useful and worthwhile discussion it was. He brought with him a message from President Gorbachev reaffirming his commitment to political and economic reform. I am pleased to be able to say that, after consulting the leaders of the other countries in the Group of Seven, I today invited President Gorbachev to London for discussions with the Group of Seven immediately following the London summit. I also invited him to stay on at the end of the London summit for bilateral discussions. I regret– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is a very important matter.

    The Prime Minister : Most people would have thought it important, but apparently not Opposition Members.

    I propose to take the opportunity of discussing with President Gorbachev when he is here, all matters, including those of bilateral interest and the changes in the Soviet Union.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister recall telling us on Tuesday that he would speak his mind in future? Will he speak his mind today and tell us plainly, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury says that the Prime Minister is opposed– [Interruption.] When the right hon. Member for Cirencester– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. It was an understandable mistake.

    Mr. Ashdown : When the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) says that the Prime Minister is opposed not only to the imposition of a single European currency, but to the principle of a single European currency, is he correct?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) can speak for himself ; I have spoken for myself repeatedly on the subject. I have made it crystal clear to the House on a number of occasions that there is no question whatsoever of the imposition of a single currency on the House without the agreement of the House. That is, and remains, the position.

    Mr. Charles Wardle : As we move towards closer European co- operation, does my right hon. Friend agree that we all need to improve our skills in languages, perhaps even in double Dutch, so that we can translate the gibberish spoken on Europe by the Leader of the Opposition?

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I have not heard any double Dutch–let us deal with the first part of the question.

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree that it would be advisable to improve skills in languages, which is something that I very much hope will happen among our young people. As to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, even if they were translated, I am not sure that they would be worth reading.

     

    Q3. Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Ross : Since the other major parties seem to agree that the United Kingdom ought to have a single currency and that there should be a federal Europe, does the Prime Minister agree that the Government have a responsibility to inform the citizens of this country of the consequences that would flow from that? Will the Government fulfil that responsibility and ensure that those issues form a major part of their manifesto–and of any referendum that might have to follow?

    The Prime Minister : I have spoken precisely about the impact of a single currency on this country on a number of occasions–not least when I set out our own plans for the hard ecu some months ago.

    Mr. David Martin : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, on his statement yesterday guaranteeing the rights of parents to see their children’s schools’ examination results? Does not that extend choice–which is at the heart of the Government’s reforms, but which is still hotly opposed by Labour?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly welcome that announcement, for parents have a right to know that information. In future, they will know it.

     

    Q4. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. McAllion : Since the Audit Commission reported this week that it costs the public purse £15 a time to collect an average amount of just £6 from those persons who are liable to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax, does the Prime Minister agree that, as well as oppressing the poor, the 20 per cent. rule is a waste of scarce public resources? Will he announce this afternoon that he intends to follow the commission’s advice and abolish the 20 per cent. contribution?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman produces only a partial comment from the Audit Commission. He neglects to mention that it supports strongly the Government’s aim of implementing the new council tax, which meets many of the objectives that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

    Mr. Thornton : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government’s compulsory competitive tendering legislation is being completely ignored in Liverpool? Is he further aware that the council has admitted to lying about the figures, spending £1 million more on one contract alone than was necessary? That is not the work of Militant Tendency, but of the so-called moderate Labour party.

    The Prime Minister : I am not entirely sure where the so-called moderate Labour party might be these days. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes an important point. Councils should use competitive tendering to improve efficiency and to provide the best service to their council taxpayers. As Councillor Keva Coombs said, to some effect :

    “The council’s problems are not down to resources. It costs four times more to pick up a piece of litter in Liverpool than it does in other areas.”

    That is Labour government in practice at local level.

     

    Q5. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Illsley : Is the Prime Minister aware that the unemployment statistics released this morning include a number of pub licensees who have been forced out of their public houses, and possibly on to the dole, because they cannot afford the massive rent increases imposed on them by the brewing industry? Will the Prime Minister re-examine the Government’s policy towards the brewing industry and the sale of beer, to prevent the wholesale eviction of pub tenants?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will know of the views of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and I have nothing further to add.

    Mr. Andy Stewart : It is six years since the coal industry dispute ended. Over that period, the miners of this country have broken their productivity record no fewer than 50 times, and their pay has increased 68 per cent.–making the miners of this country, as defined by the Labour party, super-rich. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate British miners on those achievements, and confirm that he will never, ever, tax their earnings at the rate of 59 per cent. as Labour proposes to do?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm that point to my hon. Friend. I can also confirm for him that we do not regard the super-rich as starting on an income of around £20,000 per year as the Opposition do.

     

    Q6. Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Nellist : Is the Prime Minister aware of the case that I took up two and a half months ago with the Secretary of State for Health of the death of Dr. Robin Senior who started work at Epsom district hospital on 1 February, worked 110 out of the next 138 hours and died on Thursday 7 February? Will the Prime Minister confirm that today’s wholly inadequate agreement on a 72-hour working week for junior doctors will not come in until 1997? How many more junior doctors have to die or suffer stress- related illnesses before that is brought down to a sane level?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman’s party is pledged to spend no more money on the health service, he is in no position to criticise what is in fact a considerable improvement both for patients and for doctors. As soon as practicable, junior doctors’ hours will be reduced to an average of 83 a week, or fewer by the end of 1994. Those working in the busiest areas will have a maximum on-call average of 72 hours a week. That is not the time that they actually work ; it is the time that they are on call. It is a substantial reduction and if the hon. Gentleman were not so mealy-mouthed he would welcome it.

  • PMQT – 11 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. John Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the England cricket team on the marvellous win in Yorkshire yesterday ? Does he equally welcome the sharp fall in wage increases announced yesterday and in producer prices announced today ? Does not that demonstrate that his Government’s policies against inflation have what it takes to build a long and successful innings while the whole country knows that under Labour the economy would be for ever trapped leg before wicket ?

    The Prime Minister : There are some dangerous metaphors there. I certainly welcome the producer price figures. They are extremely good. The fall in the underlying, as well as the headline, rate of inflation is very welcome news indeed. It shows clearly that we are now well on target for the Budget forecast of a 4 per cent. inflation rate this autumn. It is also encouraging that wage bargaining is beginning to reflect falling inflation and the realities of exchange rate mechanism membership. That is very good indeed for industries’ competitiveness. On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I am happy to congratulate the England team, but, in doing so, I remind him and everyone that the West Indies is a formidable side and there is a long way to go yet.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister now be asking his right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) to step down as President of the Bruges group?

    The Prime Minister : That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

    Mr. Kinnock : Is it not apparent from today’s events and yesterday’s events that what we are seeing is not Britain at the heart of Europe but deep division at the heart of the Conservative party? [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is it not the Prime Minister’s duty to clear up the confusion in the ranks of his own Government, which can do nothing but damage Britain’s interests?

    The Prime Minister : I am not quite sure what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) might think about the degree of unity that the right hon. Gentleman suggests is on his Benches. We are negotiating in the intergovernmental conferences on exactly the same basis as that on which we first started. The position on economic and monetary union has not changed in any way. I have set out repeatedly the circumstances and conditions under which we are negotiating.

    Mr. Kinnock : Can the Prime Minister tell us why 11 finance Ministers and a couple of Commissioners in a meeting yesterday with the Chancellor got entirely the wrong end of the stick?

    The Prime Minister : I can say categorically to the right hon. Gentleman, as I did a moment ago, that there is no change whatever in our negotiating position on Europe. I have repeatedly set that out over recent months.

     

    Q2. Mr. Adley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Adley : In welcoming the current ministerial visit to the Lebanon and in recognising the help that the Syrian and Iranian Governments are providing on the hostage problem, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he recognises an additional ingredient in the conundrum, namely, the holding by the Israeli Government of Sheikh Obeid and other Lebanese hostages? Will he please make known on behalf of his Government to Mr. Shamir that that ingredient is a problem, and that we expect the Israelis to be as helpful as possible in resolving it?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend, and can tell him that the Prime Minister of Israel is aware of my views on that matter. It is wrong for any country to take and hold hostages, and I have communicated that view to Israel on more than one occasion. Our objective is to see the release as soon as possible of all hostages, and we count on any Government with influence to use it for the return of hostages. They should be back with their families where they belong.

     

    Q3. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Beith : How will the Prime Minister respond to the demand from those of his supporters who say that he should veto a single currency here and now? Will he back a single currency when it comes before this Parliament for decision, or is he scared to say?

    The Prime Minister : There is no veto as such. There is a requirement that treaty changes can come into effect only if agreed by all member states and by their Parliaments. I have repeatedly said that we will not agree to any treaty on EMU which does not safeguard the interests of this country. I am happy to reiterate that.

    Sir Michael Marshall : Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome the visit to the House of Britain’s first astronaut, Helen Sharman? Does he agree that her courage and professionalism is a matter of national pride? Will he take this opportunity to urge British industry and science to join with the Government in the careful and continued look at further opportunities for international space collaboration?

    The Prime Minister : I look forward to meeting Miss Sharman shortly and to congratulating her on her courage and on her remarkable achievement. I happily agree with my hon. Friend’s other comments.

     

    Q4. Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Sir David Steel : Is the Prime Minister aware that there are some creatures who, when removed from their settled natural habitat, can turn dangerously unpredictable in their behaviour [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Sir David Steel : Since allowing them to wander freely abroad has caused some difficulty– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Interruptions take up a great deal of time.

    Sir David Steel : –has the right hon. Gentleman any proposals to extend the requirements for muzzles and leashes to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, every hon. Member has the right and the duty to speak their mind, and that is entirely proper.

    Mr. Tony Banks : She never said that.

    The Prime Minister : That is entirely proper, and it is a freedom which I propose to exercise myself.

     

    Q5. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Townsend : Now that Mr. James Baker’s middle east peace mission has fallen into serious trouble, and given that the United Kingdom was the first sponsor of United Nations’ resolution 242, would not this be a good moment for the United Kingdom and its European Community partners to start playing a far more positive role in the search for a lasting peace settlement to the Arab-Israeli dispute?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have played an important role in that process for many years, and it is right that, in the forthcoming peace conference, the European Community should play a leading role. I welcome the recent Israeli agreement that the European Community presidency should participate in the conference that will be held soon. That is a welcome advance.

     

    Q6. Mr. George Howarth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Howarth : If the Prime Minister is so confident about the Government’s proposal on health service trusts, why is it that the Mersey regional health authority is keeping its expensively produced business plans for the second wave of opt-outs a secret? It will not even release them to Members of Parliament. Why can we not have all this information out in the open, have a proper debate on the subject and then a ballot? Let us find out what the people of Merseyside think.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that there will be many opportunities for Mersey debates in the weeks to come and I look forward to those with great relish. Every reform of the health service has been controversial, but, in due course, each has proved to be irreversible and in the interests of the health service. Our recently introduced changes will follow the same course.

    Mr. Norris : Will my right hon. Friend intervene in the local government review to look at a local authority in Britain where people wait eight weeks to have their bins emptied, where thousands of council houses lie empty and where kids have to run the gauntlet of a picket line to get to school? My right hon. Friend will know that this is not fiction ; it is Labour Liverpool under so-called moderate Labour control. If this is how the Labour party runs a city, how will it run a country?

    The Prime Minister : I strongly suspect that the whole country will have observed how Liverpool has been run and drawn appropriate conclusions from that about how a Labour Government would work on a larger scale. Whether the Labour council is far left or moderate, it has done that great city no favours, just as a Labour Government would do this country no favours.

     

    Q7. Mr. McKelvey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. McKelvey : Will the Prime Minister give some serious consideration to the plight of two brave but unfortunate young men in my constituency, Walter and Ian Baird, of the same family, who are 21 and 16- years-old and who have contracted AIDS through blood transfusion? Although a settlement of over £45,000 for the pair of them was agreed over two months ago, they have yet to be paid. Why is it that 10 per cent. of the payment seems to be held up in Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman will give me precise details of the cases that he has in mind, I shall be happy to examine them and respond to them.

     

    Q8. Mr. David Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

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

    Mr. Evans : Will my right hon. Friend make sure that there are enough funds in the English Heritage budget to ensure that a certain building in the Walworth road is preserved, so that my children and grandchildren can not only read about the demise of socialism but can go and see where the last of the Bolsheviks are working, led by a leader who was a co-producer and director of a play called “Promises, promises”?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes his point as only he can.

    Dr. Owen : Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is as determined to strengthen and enlarge the European Community as he is to prevent the emergence of a united states of Europe? Will he tell the European Community that positively negotiating and participating in those negotiations does not in any way surrender a final decision on the overall package to protect the best interests of this country, and that while the devil, as always, is in the detail, so can be the benefits, and that it will probably be December before we can make an overall decision on the package that is negotiated?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct in his latter point and I strongly support his remarks about a wider Europe, which I believe should involve not only the EFTA states but, in due course, the eastern European states. I agree with him that negotiations on the two conferences are of vital importance to the future of this country. Whatever decisions are made may have a profound effect on our trade and well-being. I have set out often enough to the House that the economic case for monetary union has not been made, that we cannot accept the imposition of a single currency and that any proposed changes to the treaty of Rome–a move to a single currency–would require a separate decision by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament– [Interruption.] If Opposition Members do not wish to hear about the important negotiating position of the Government, that is a matter for them. Against that background, I shall negotiate with our European partners for what I believe to be right for this country. It will then be for this House to decide at the conclusion of those negotiations whether it is content to accept them.