The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: European Union

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Several hon. Members rose —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. John Hume (Foyle) rose–

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Hume rose–

    The Prime Minister: I have given way sufficiently.

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

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

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

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

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

    Only Opposition Members fail to be able to see that.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Maastricht Treaty – Social Policy Protocol – 22 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement made in the House of Commons on the 22nd July 1993 on the Maastricht Treaty – Social Policy Protocol.

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    That this House, in compliance with the requirements of section 7 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, notes the policy of Her Majesty’s Government on the adoption of the Protocol on Social Policy.

    The debate we have in the House this afternoon is without precedent. After months of discussion, Parliament has passed the European Communities (Amendment) Act with huge majorities. In this House, there was a majority of over 240 on Second Reading and of 180 on Third Reading. In the other place, there was a majority of well over 100 on Third Reading and of 269 in the showpiece vote over a referendum. Rarely in recent history has Parliament shown its will so effectively. Today’s debate is an attempt to frustrate that will. I believe that ratification of the Maastricht treaty is in the interests of this country. I negotiated the treaty because I believed that it was in the interests of this country, and that is why I signed it. That is why I refused to ditch it or to change it, even though there was plenty of opportunity to do so over the past year. Let me set out to the House the reasons why I regard it as vital for this country, for the reasons do not just relate to what is within the treaty itself, but go wider than the treaty and relate to the general position in the European Community.

    We took the decision to join the Community–the right decision, I believe–over 20 years ago. From the day we took the decision, across both sides of the House, it has often been a matter of controversy. Sometimes it has been bitter, sometimes it has flared up, and at other times, for a while, it has been quiescent. Always that schism between the parties has rested there, and it has damaged the influence that this country has been able to exercise within the European Community.

    Too often, as a result of those divisions within this House and sometimes beyond it, this country under successive Governments–I make no party point –has allowed itself and its interests to be sidelined. If it had not been for those disputes, and if we had been able to play the full part in the Community that I believe we should have done, it might not have developed in the way it has, and many of the concerns that some hon. Members have might well have been dealt with.

    In that period, we have had many successes in the Community. The British rebate was a great negotiating success. The single market was one of the greatest changes in the EC since its conception. The reform of the common agricultural policy, the enlargement of the EC–each and every one, in its own way, is a big issue that has affected every aspect of the EC. All of them were British successes.

    It shows that we can win the arguments at the European table. Despite that, we have still not exercised the influence that we should have, or shaped the EC in the fashion that was possible.

    Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I wish to deal with serious matters rather than frivolous interruptions at the moment.

    Too often over the years, the dominant political attitude has been to object to the ways others have wanted to develop the EC, rather than to set out our plans, our prospects and our hopes and then fight for them to deliver the type of community that is right for this country.

    Many hon. Members are right in their opposition to the way in which the EC operates. Some of the ways that it operates need to be changed–I strongly support that. I want to see the EC reformed, as do my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members, but if we are to reform the EC, Britain must have influence in the EC. We will not have influence if we do not ratify the treaty that we have agreed after consultations in the House.

    I did not initiate the negotiations. I have made it clear that I thought that they were premature, and I said so to our partners during our negotiations. I did seek to negotiate what I believed to be the best outcome for Britain. I did so within a remit I had obtained from the House, and after seeking the views of Parliament and negotiating within them.

    I believe that, as a result of that discussion and debate within the House, it was right for me to decline to accept the social chapter–and the single currency without the express will of the House.

    I believe that the events which have followed the conclusion of the negotiations have proved that judgment to be correct. As I have told the House before, in my judgment Europe is not yet remotely ready for a single currency, and the present economic circumstances across Europe mean that it cannot afford the ambitions of the social chapter.

    The House and the Government must accept the obligations we entered into and that Parliament approved in the European Communities (Amendment) Act. There is a straightforward self-interested reason for this country why we must do that. If we fail to do that, no British Government will have influence in Europe for many years. Europe is a market of vital interest to our companies, and to this country’s future prosperity and future employment. If we wilfully throw away our capacity to defend our interests and promote our policies in that market, I believe that this country will pay a dear price for that folly in the years to come. I would ask every hon. Member–including some of my hon. Friends–to reflect deeply on that point before they vote this evening.

    Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber): I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. He has forcefully and clearly made the argument for our remaining within the EC in order to argue our case and develop our position. Surely the same argument exactly applies to the development of social policy. How can this country influence the development of European social policy by opting out ?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government accept that there is a social dimension to the EC. We have the best implementation of the social dimension of any European country. Perhaps if Opposition Members were better informed, they would not talk such rubbish so much of the time.

    I know the hon. Gentleman’s affection for Europe, but I say to him that a good European does not accept every piece of nonsense from Brussels just because it has a European label. If we believe that the social chapter is bad for employment–and I do believe that–then it is right for us to argue against it, and to try to persuade our partners to argue against it also.

    I believe that that is what we are doing, and increasingly in Europe, businesses and employers are saying what we have said in this country and what I have said from the outset–the charter will destroy jobs across the EC.

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

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

    For the first time in 20 years, we are beginning to see a material move in the European Community agenda in the direction that Britain has long sought. It would be absurd for us to throw away our influence in the Community at this moment. We are seeing enlargement. We are seeing increasing moves towards the repatriation of responsibilities in this country–I hope for concrete progress on that in December. We are seeing proper budget control both within the Commission and right the way across the Community.

    The European Community will continue to develop, whatever else may happen. But we need to influence the way of that development and to see that it moves in a way that is congenial to the British interest.

    I want a wider European Community. I regard the present Community as but a fragment of Europe. That is why I wish to see the European Free Trade Association countries join, and a little later, our old friends in central and eastern Europe. The wider that we can spread the European Community, with a free market concept not only in economic terms but in military and security terms, the more we shall be able to hand a glorious bonus to the next generation that we should not throw away.

    So I want that wider Community–a free-market Community, a Europe with the minimum necessary centralisation, a Europe that exercises more powers through the elected Governments of its member states and fewer powers through unelected commissioners, a Europe in which national Governments exercise undiluted control over genuine domestic policy matters from national elections to our education system, from health care to religion. That is the sort of Community that has been our agenda for a long time, and we are beginning to make progress in encouraging others to support the development of that sort of Community.

    We seek a Community that emphasises co-operation between Governments, not imposition from the centre. We seek a Community where member states freely decide the agenda and the outcome. We seek a Community which limits common rules and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to matters such as free trade and free competition, where they are genuinely necessary for any level playing field to be established. That is the Community that we seek to develop and shape.

    However, we can do that only from the inside. If we are inside the Community fighting for that with allies elsewhere in the Community, we can build properly in the interests of our future. It is a process that we can take much further as a fully committed member of real influence.

    Mr. Benn: I have listened intently to the Prime Minister. Has it occurred to him that he can do the things of which he speaks only if he carries the full-hearted consent of the British people? He has the power through the House of Lords and the House of Commons, with a majority, to force the treaty through and ratify by the prerogative, but he has absolutely failed to tell the British people that they have any role in the matter, any interest in the matter or any right to determine the matter. As a result, he is carrying into the Community the establishment of Britain but not the British people. He will pay a heavy price for that, and so will the Community.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has been a passionate opponent of much of the Community for many years. He has not changed his views, and I respect him for that. He spoke in the House the other day of the rights of Parliament in this House. We are a parliamentary democracy. Decisions such as that to which the right hon. Gentleman refers should properly be taken in the House, and are taken in the House.

    I do not want to see either a centralist or a federalist Europe. I mean federalist in the sense in which we refer to it, not in the sense in which other countries refer to it. They mean something different by it. Yet when I say that to some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, they are apt to say to me, “What about this country or that? There are federalist countries in the Community.” That is true. There are. That is why we need influence and allies in Europe to build the sort of European Community we want.

    What is the alternative to that approach? To leave the Community? Very few right hon. or hon. Members would go into the Lobby for that proposition, today or any other day. What is the other alternative? To stand aside and let other people run the Community in a way of which we would not approve? That is hardly the right way to exercise influence in the Community.

    I have never understood why so many people who claim to be the most pro-British–whichever party is in government–have the least faith in our arguments and our capacity to prevail in the European argument.

    Mr. Cryer: This is not a frivolous point. One of the threads of the Prime Minister’s argument is that, unless we become enmeshed more deeply in Europe through the Maastricht treaty, we will not have any influence, and that the differences between political parties are inhibiting that influence.

    On one matter there has been consent between all the political parties–the common agricultural policy. It is wasteful, costly and out of control. That has not changed. The reforms that the Government have instituted are costing more. The food mountains are growing ; they are imposed on world food markets and are damaging developing nations. We have not done a thing to change it, and we cannot.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may say that we have not yet gone far enough, and I share that view ; I think that there are further reforms to be made to the common agricultural policy. Which way are we most likely to get them? By standing on the sidelines and throwing stones at the Community, or by being inside, seeking allies in other countries?

    There is only one way in which we could find ourselves with the centralist, federalist Europe that we do not want, and that would be to sideline ourselves, through our own efforts, and let other nations determine the future development of the Community. That would be a folly of historic proportions for the country and the House. That is why we need to seek allies in the Community, and why we need to honour our obligations and to ratify the treaty that Parliament has approved.

    The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and I do not differ on the importance of the treaty, if he stands by what he said some time ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said :

    “I do not think we should oppose the Maastricht Treaty.” We have seen what the right hon. Gentleman has done over recent months, and what he will seek to do this evening. But it is a matter of huge importance to this country that we honour the obligation that we entered into after consulting the House, and then continue to build the Community that we wish to see.

    Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): The Prime Minister emphasised a moment ago that we are a parliamentary democracy. Notwithstanding his own feelings and those of his Cabinet on the social chapter, if the House decides to support the Opposition amendment in favour of the social chapter, will the Prime Minister, as a democrat, accept that resolution and implement it?

    The Prime Minister: I expect that the will of the House will be to support the Government. If by some mischance that were not to be the case, we would make our position clear at the conclusion of today’s business.

    Mr. Michael Lord (Suffolk, Central): My right hon. Friend knows that, for many years, I have opposed the social chapter because of the effect that it would have on companies such as ICI in Stowmarket, which is in my constituency. I urge the Prime Minister to continue to oppose the social chapter as strongly as he can. I will be voting against the social chapter and in support of the Government in the Lobby tonight. [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: I hope that the gesture of the hon. Member for Durham Central (Mr. Lord) referred to ICI. ICI is one of the biggest employers in the country– [Interruption.] –and provides jobs in the constituencies of many of the hon. Members who are shouting at me. Its chairman, Sir Denys Henderson, has said :

    “The Prime Minister is right to seek ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and, equally, it is vital that he continues to insist on the Social opt-out provision which he successfully negotiated last year.”

    That is the view of a business man whose company will employ many thousands of people in the constituencies of many hon. Members who are contemplating voting for the amendment.

    Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) rose–

    The Prime Minister: I should like to make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

    The Opposition amendment seeks to impose the social chapter on us. I believe that it would be profoundly damaging to jobs and growth in this country, as do business men–although, having quoted Sir Denys Henderson, I will not detain the House with a large number of other quotes that I could offer to that effect.

    There is no true majority for the social chapter in the House. It is wholly opposed by those who understand the economic damage that it would cause. There is an alliance of Members, for differing reasons, who may seek to come together and vote for the amendment, but it is not an alliance based on any conviction whatever.

    My hon. Friends are aware of the deficiencies of the social chapter, yet I know that some of them are tempted to vote for the Labour amendment or against the substantive motion. They do not believe in it, but they have convinced themselves that it will prevent ratification of the Act.

    Other hon. Members may have considered voting in a similar way. They, too, know and understand in many cases the damage of the amendment. They do not want more unemployment and they do not want a more centralist Community. I hope that those Members will reflect again on the cynicism of such a vote, and on the damage that it will do to this country.

    Parliament is no longer debating the merits of the Maastricht Bill. The Bill is now an Act and, in due course, the treaty will be ratified. What Parliament is debating is whether we should negotiate a new treaty to add Britain to the social agreement. The treaty in the Maastricht Bill–the European Communities (Amendment) Bill–is now law, as the House well understands. Royal Assent has been given to the Act, so the treaty will be ratified. Seventy-one separate votes in favour of the Bill should not be frustrated by one parliamentary motion expressing an opinion to the contrary.

    The House knows that to vote for the Labour amendment today is a cynical and unscrupulous vote which does not represent the true will of the House. It is an alliance of different parties with different interests, voting for the same amendment for different purposes. In any genuine free-standing vote in the House, the social chapter would be defeated, as any Member of the House knows. As the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Liberal Democrat party has said : “The social chapter opens the way to European- wide collective bargaining arrangements. They are wrong for this country’s future and contrary to the Liberal party’s belief in decentralising wage bargaining. It is an approach that failed in the 1970s and one that could not work in the 1990s. It is too costly, too inflexible and too rigid”–

    Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps he would like to know the facts that made me change my mind and support the Government tonight. A manufacturing company in my constituency has interests in Europe but is now considering closing down those interests because the costs imposed by the social chapter, and will be bringing those jobs back into this country and into my constituency. On that basis, my right hon. Friend will appreciate that there was no way that I could support the treaty chapter.

    The Prime Minister rose–

    Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey): May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his latest convert?

    The Prime Minister: I am always delighted to accept a sinner returning home. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) back supporting the Government. The Opposition amendment is a stratagem by an Opposition who have lost their principled concern for the Community. They are seeking solely to embarrass the Government, and a small number of Back Benchers want to obstruct the treaty. Anyone who is concerned with the interests of this country would regard the attitude of the official Opposition as incomprehensible, and that of the Liberal party, given its previous statements, as, frankly, contemptible.

    Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil): Since the Prime Minister has for, if I recall, the third or fourth time quoted my words–incidentally, quoted words that were uttered before the treaty was signed–may I say to him that his speech so far has been a most passionate and, if I may say so, effective statement about why it is important to be inside European institutions helping to shape them, not outside suffering from them.

    I do not understand how the speech that he has given so far, which is about being included in European institutions, can be used to justify an opt-out from European institutions. It is entirely true that my party and I have reservations about the social chapter, just as the Prime Minister has reservations about the Maastricht treaty, but he has argued that it is in our country’s interests to be inside the treaty changing them, not outside complaining about them. What applies to the Maastricht treaty also applies to the social chapter. If the Prime Minister genuinely believes that Britain’s interests are served by being within Europe shaping its institutions, why is he recommending to the House that we should be outside complaining and suffering from them?

    The Prime Minister: I recall going fishing many years ago when somebody caught an eel. “My,” they said, “look how it wriggles.” Wriggle though the right hon. Gentleman may, the quotes that I have used support my case and not his–as, since the right hon. Gentleman tempts me, does this one :

    “The action Labour is taking will prolong Britain’s uncertainties about Europe, delay inward investment, delay sterling recovery and lose jobs. I am not going to vote for Labour for one night of fun at the Government’s expense and ask the British people to pay in more lost jobs.”

    Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe that or not?

    Mr. Ashdown: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman, and his party, believe that. I remind the Prime Minister that, were it not for the votes of our party, there would be no Maastricht treaty before the House. I remind him that our position was then, as it is today, that, if it is a question of ratification of the treaty, there is no doubt where our votes stand, but this is a question of whether Britain shall be inside the social chapter of the treaty or outside. Our view consistently has been that we should be inside, and we shall express that view tonight.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has just made a statement of immense significance, for he and his party were asking earlier about the will of the House. If the Labour amendment is defeated and the main motion is now laid before the House, the only conclusion from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said is that he will be in the Government Lobby on the main motion. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, and I invite him to intervene again if he wants to correct me.

    Mr. Ashdown: Let me make it clear to the Prime Minister that, if the circumstances he describes arrive tonight, we shall continue to vote to express our wish that the social chapter should provide benefits to Britain and to Britain’s work force, which has nothing to do with ratification of the Maastricht treaty, as the Prime Minister knows full well.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman becomes more ludicrous by the intervention. By that time, the amendment will have been lost. The party that talks about the will of the House, within seconds of having seen that amendment lost, would seek not to vote with the logic of its argument. How like a Liberal. Usually it takes a day for them to change their minds; this time it is rather quicker.

    Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. If he thinks back to the story of the young boy fishing, does he recall that not only is an eel “one that wriggles”, but that eels are excessively slippery? [Laughter.]

    The Prime Minister: This is becoming more fun than I had imagined.

    Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay): Does my hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding what might happen if we were to adopt the social chapter, this country’s experience with the European Community has taught us that it has many ways of destroying jobs? That is shown by the fishing industry, which is practically on its knees, and by the meat processing industry–the latest to be decimated by European regulations.

    During all the years that I have run a small business and other firms have come to me with their problems, European regulations have consistently destroyed jobs in this country. The idea that we will be able to control the European Community’s imposition of those regulations on employers in this country is pie in the sky, and the triumph of hope over experience.

    The Prime Minister: In that case, my hon. Friend should be in the Lobby against the social chapter this evening. As a small business woman, my hon. Friend will know that 60 per cent. of our exports go to the European Community, and that a massive amount of inward investment comes to every part of this country partly because of our membership of the European Community.

    Let me turn directly to the social chapter. Through qualified majority voting–not unanimity–the Community would have the power to determine social and working conditions. The social chapter would allow the Community to restrict part-time work, whether or not we agreed in this House. It could set a rigid framework for rules and conditions of employment, which would replace the rules developed in this country, and few areas, if any, would be exempt. Trade unions across Europe could forge deals and translate them into Community law, over the heads of individual workers and without the involvement of the British Parliament.

    Mr. Ashdown rose —

    The Prime Minister: I will spare the House another quotation from the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). Above all, the social chapter would mean that many who are now employed would be likely to become unemployed. Many without jobs would stay without jobs. The main right that workers would get would be the right to become unemployed.

    I strongly support our membership of the Community, but I support a Community which does not intrude into areas that are properly the domain of the member states. That, I believe, is what the social chapter does. There is already concern across the House, not just on the Conservative Benches, at the Commission’s attempts to use health and safety powers for social legislation. We will oppose any abuse of those powers. We shall, if necessary, challenge the Commission’s legal base–as we are doing over the working time directive. In the social protocol, through the opt-out that I negotiated with the consent of the House and a massive majority to do so, I have preserved the right of the House to decide. Yet, in the amendment to the Government’s motion, the Opposition seek to remove that right. They are supported by the Liberal Democrats. On the social chapter, as on defence, value added tax and much else, the Liberal Democrats say one thing and do another. They change their principles from doorstep to doorstep, week to week and issue to issue.

    This week, the hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) were both parroting the facile proposition that, without the social chapter, Britain would have a sweatshop economy. Good slogan; rotten argument. The Labour party says it. So does the Liberal party, naturally. That is nothing surprising–they are usually indistinguishable, and usually both wrong.

    The truth is that Britain has the best health and safety record in Europe, the best occupational pension scheme in Europe and the best system for caring for vulnerable people in Europe. Rather than talking such nonsense, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should talk to business and learn what he is talking about. Business knows that the Community must compete or contract. If we add to social costs, we will not compete and we shall contract. We shall lose jobs in the short term and the long term. The one certain impact of the social chapter is that jobs will be lost and unemployment will be worse. That is what is at stake.

    Is it worth it? Go and ask our industrialists. Will it help them to grow? Will it pay high wages? Will it guarantee jobs? Ask good investors whether the social chapter will attract them to Britain. Listen to the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation, the British chambers of commerce and the Institute of Directors–every single British organisation. They know that playing games on the social chapter is a dangerous game with the British economy. Everyone knows, except Opposition Members who would impose those burdens on British industry and the British work force.

    Uncertainty about Britain’s commitment to the Community is damaging to the country. It would undermine our standing, our influence and our national interests. That uncertainty undoubtedly will arise if Parliament does not now implement the Act that we have approved in Parliament. It must clear the way for the treaty that I signed at Maastricht. I believe that the treaty embodies the genuine will of a parliamentary majority, not the will of a coalition of disparate minorities simply to obstruct.

    As the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said : “we should not consort with people who are just completely, fundamentally anti the European Community.”

    I hope that he stands by that.

    During the past few years, Britain has had an increasingly strong voice in the Community. As never before, we have influenced its future direction. So long as we remain a fully committed member, we can have an even stronger voice in the future.

    That does not mean accepting everything wanted by our partners. It means being in there in the Community; arguing, debating, shaping the future of our Community and carrying alliances with us. Europe is beginning to move in our direction. In France, in Germany and in Britain, a large majority looks not to a super-state, not to a united states of Europe, but to a Europe of nation states. Those states co-operate closely and enjoy a single market embracing 340 million people, but they retain their identity and sovereignty.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): My right hon. Friend will know of my strong opposition to and reservations about the Maastricht treaty. I have been greatly encouraged by what he has said about how he envisages Europe’s future and the influence that he can bring to bear on Europe from within Europe. In his speech this afternoon, will my right hon. Friend help me by assuring the House and me that this country will not move towards a single currency and return to the exchange rate mechanism as long as he is in power? Will he assure us that we in this country, who are proud of our sovereignty, integrity and place in the world, will be able to continue to have control over our foreign and security policies?

    The Prime Minister: I have repeatedly said to the House on a number of occasions that I do not envisage that we shall be able to move towards a single currency–a matter on which the House makes the decisions–in anything remotely like the time scale previously set out. That is increasingly becoming the view of other people. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has said on several occasions, there is no prospect of our returning to the exchange rate mechanism in the near future, as the conditions are simply not right. I do not envisage that they will be right for some considerable period of time.

    Britain’s interests demand that we play a leading part in the Community. Common sense demands that we retain the freedom of action which I secured in signing the social protocol. That is why the Government are determined to ratify the treaty I signed and to oppose last-ditch efforts to delay or distort it. It is a matter of national interest that we proceed in that fashion, and it is upon that basis that I ask the House to put aside and reject the Opposition amendment, and to adopt the motion.

  • PMQT – 15 July 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Waterson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

    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. Waterson : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming not only the lowest inflation rate for 30 years, but the fifth successive monthly fall in unemployment? Does he agree that the House deserves an apology from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) for predicting a steady rise in unemployment over the spring and summer?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is unkind to remind the House of the predictions by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. There have been a great deal of them–all wrong. If it would be for the convenience of the House, I will place a copy of them in the Library. The further fall in unemployment and inflation is very good news indeed. Unemployment has fallen by over 80,000 since the beginning of the year, and, taken with the remarkable figures on Tuesday for manufacturing output, we can now say with some certainty that there is clear evidence of recovery gathering pace.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister accept that it should be for the House to decide whether the social chapter is included in the British version of the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : The House has examined the whole of the treaty. I expect to ratify the treaty that I signed at Maastricht. The House has shown its support for the treaty ; I expect that it will do so again.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister has carefully not answered the question. Let me put it to him plainly and clearly. Whichever way the House votes on the social chapter, will the Government accept the decision?

    The Prime Minister : I have said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman before, and I repeat, that I expect the Government’s motion to be carried, and I expect to ratify the treaty that I signed.

    Mr. John Smith : The House and the country will have noticed another failure to answer the question directly. Does the Prime Minister understand that, were he to defy the will of the House of Commons, it would be a monstrous violation of the rights of the House, and would at one fell swoop undermine our parliamentary democracy?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps does not understand the answers. I will make them more clear for him, so that he is in no doubt. We expect to ratify the treaty that I signed at Maastricht. The House has shown its support for the treaty ; I expect it to do so again.

    Mr. Lamont : This month, like last, has seen a remarkable catalogue of good economic indicators. Is it not the case that, in addition to the fifth fall in monthly unemployment, we have seen the largest increase in industrial production for four years and the lowest inflation record for nearly 30 years? When one puts that into a European context and sees that Britain has a lower than average rate of inflation in the European Community, is the only country in the European Community in which unemployment is falling, and is the only country in the European Community in which industrial production is rising, I congratulate the new Chancellor on the rapid success of his policies.

    The Prime Minister : I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be most grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support for his policies. It is entirely clear that we are coming out of recession and into recovery. It is equally clear that we are leading Europe into recovery.

    Mr. Ashdown : Will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that the Government have said to their rebels that nothing will stop them from ratifying the Maastricht treaty, but they have said to the House that adopting the social chapter would jeopardise the treaty? Both statements cannot be true ; which is?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten what he said about the social chapter. [Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not forgotten, but perhaps I can remind the House what he said :

    “I believe what is now being put forward in the social chapter may well lead to a form of Euro-sclerosis.”

    He continued :

    “The social chapter in the Maastricht agreement, it seems to me, is a really worrying attempt by Europe to try and rebuild in Britain the things that we have dismantled over the last 12 or 15 years.” If that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman and his party, and he is true to his view, I shall expect to see him in our Lobby next Thursday.

     

    Portsmouth

    Q2. Mr. David Martin : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has plans to pay an official visit to Portsmouth.

    The Prime Minister : I have no immediate plans to do so.

    Mr. Martin : Does my right hon. Friend recall that he has not visited Portsmouth since the general election, at a time when the so-called poll experts were predicting not only a Government defeat in general but, even more shamefully, the loss of my seat in particular? Will my right hon. Friend visit us again soon, preferably in the 50th anniversary year of D- day? Such a visit would not only mark the premier naval port of Portsmouth’s vital contribution to our defence needs in the past, but mark its present contribution and the efforts it will make for many years in the future.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is an extremely forceful advocate for Portsmouth, and I am grateful for his invitation. I understand how important the defence industry is to his constituents, and I hope that he will take every opportunity to remind them of two facts : that the Labour party would cut defence spending by a quarter, and that the Liberal Democrats would cut it by half. We hear a lot from the leader of the Liberal Democrats about taking military action in Bosnia ; we hear rather less from him about how we would be able to take that action after his policy had dismantled the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

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

    Mr. McAllion : Is the Prime Minister aware that, because of the legal shackles on British trades unions, this week sacked Timex workers were banned from taking part in the national launch of the Timex boycott campaign, and banned from calling on the support of other British trade unionists?

    What is banned here is legal elsewhere in Europe. Sacked Timex workers have been in France this week, exercising the democratic rights denied to them in their own country. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed of the Government’s record on labour law, which has isolated Britain in Europe and left British workers on their own, with no social chapter, no wages councils and no effective right to strike? The Government have turned Britain, once one of the workshops of the world, into one of the world’s sweatshop economies.

    The Prime Minister : The sort of behaviour that we saw from trade unionists at Timex is nothing for the hon. Gentleman to be proud of. I dare say that the jobs lost at Timex as a result will stand as the clearest evidence that the hon. Gentleman’s policy is utterly the wrong way to look at labour and trade union relationships.

     

    Q4. Mr. Kynoch : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

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

    Mr. Kynoch : Will my right hon. Friend thank and congratulate the anti-terrorist branch and MI5 for its continuing efforts to protect the public from terrorist crimes, and especially their efforts yesterday? Does he agree that had we failed to pass the prevention of terrorism Act and gone down the path of giving away Northern Ireland–the policy of the Opposition–the anti-terrorist branch and MI5 might as well have been told by us to pack up their things and go back to traffic duty?

    The Prime Minister : The police and the Security Service deserve our congratulations on their professionalism and vigilance. They have demonstrated that in fighting terrorism over many years. It is clear, and it has been endorsed repeatedly by the House, that we need the prevention of terrorism Act to defeat the terrorists. With the greatest goodwill in the world, I cannot understand why, year after year, Opposition Members have voted it down.

    Mr. Boyce : In view of the Prime Minister’s utterances in recent days about nuclear weapons being defensive measures, may I ask him to take this opportunity to assure the House, the country and the world that Britain will never use them first?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should know better than to ask such a daft question.

     

    Q5. Mr. Nicholas Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

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

    Mr. Winterton : My right hon. Friend has announced this afternoon dramatic improvements in a number of economic indicators which are of immense interest to the House and the country. Will he continue to encourage manufacturing industry as a way of improving our economy, and will he ensure that in the Budget to be announced in December, the fragile recovery of our manufacturing base, which is vital to our future, will continue to be encouraged and that measures will be introduced to ensure that recovery and continued economic growth?

    The Prime Minister : The whole House knows and respects my hon. Friend’s advocacy of manufacturing, so he will be as pleased as I am about the growing success of British manufacturers. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) introduced measures in the Budget and autumn statement to help manufacturing industry. I say also to my hon. Friend that the one thing that would do great damage to manufacturing industry would be the provisions of the social chapter.

    Mrs. Mahon : Does the Prime Minister realise that 500,000 of the present unemployed are aged between 18 and 24 and that, because of the cuts that he helped to introduce, they are having to manage on £4.97 a day? Does he think that that is enough to keep them in food and on which they can live? Will he take action now to end the discrimination against that age group, instead of making cheap political points at the expense of the unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that the hon. Lady has grasped the training opportunities that exist for young people. I want youngsters to take up those training opportunities. That is what they are there for and it is in their interest to take them up.

     

    Q6. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

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

    Mr. Amess : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s trade union reforms have made a significant contribution to Britain’s increased industrial competitiveness over the past 10 years, while the trade unions have made a significant contribution to the Labour party’s electoral uncompetitiveness over the same period?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend, and I came across an interesting quote last week from a delegate at a Transport and General Workers Union conference, who said :

    “We are not the tail wagging the dog. We are the dog.”

    That is the true relationship between Labour and the unions. The unions are the dog and Labour is the lamp post.

     

    Q7. Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

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

    Mr. Hain : What is the Prime Minister going to do about corruption in his flagship council in Westminster? When will he stop crooks financing the Conservative party? Why did he allow 44 of his own Members to vote themselves tax privileges in the Lloyd’s amendments on Tuesday? Is that why he is the most unpopular Prime Minister on record?

    The Prime Minister : The best that can be said about that compendium question is that it is worthy of the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Fry : In welcoming the unemployment figure, will my right hon. Friend also take time to express vividly to all those in employment the cost of the social security budget, currently running at more than £60 a week for every worker? Does not that large sum justify the Government’s intention to re-examine that budget?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right about that for the reasons that I have set out on a number of occasions in recent weeks. That problem is faced not only in Britain, but right across the European Community, in Japan, the United States and other industrial countries.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the 1993 Tokyo Economic Summit – 12 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement made in the House of Commons on 12th July 1993 on the Tokyo Economic Summit.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement on the economic summit in Tokyo and the Group of Seven meeting with President Yeltsin. I attended the summit with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. During the three days I also had bilateral meetings with our host, Prime Minister Miyazawa, and with the Presidents of the United States and Russia and the Prime Minister of Canada. The summit produced significant achievements. These are set out in the economic and political declarations which I have placed in the Library of the House.

    Before the Tokyo summit, the GATT talks had been stalled for several months. The summit acted as a catalyst. The United States, Japan and the European Community negotiated a report on access to each others’ markets which has led to a resumption of GATT negotiations in Geneva this morning.

    The report offers large benefits to British industry. In six of the eight categories where tariffs are to be abolished entirely, Britain is a net exporter. These include pharmaceuticals and construction equipment. Japan’s agreement to abolish all the import duty on whisky will give a welcome boost to sales in a market which is already worth over £170 million a year to Scotland. Many other particularly high tariffs faced by British exporters will be cut by 50 per cent. or more. These include punitive United States tariffs on ceramics, glassware and high quality textiles. In other categories of manufactured goods, there was agreement to cut as many tariffs as possible by a third, or to harmonise them at low levels.

    The Uruguay round is far wider in scope than previous multilateral trade negotiations. It still has a long way to go, but the Tokyo meetings have injected much-needed momentum and real progress on substantive issues– action as well as words–and the world-wide prospect of more trade and more jobs, especially for a trading nation like the British. With low interest rates and firm control of costs, British industry is exceptionally well placed to benefit from a successful GATT round.

    Each summit country, except Japan, is facing a serious fiscal problem. With the exception of the United Kingdom, the European participants are not expecting economic growth this year. Against this background, the summit identified barriers to growth which have developed in much of the industrialised world.

    As at the European Community’s Copenhagen Council, I found a new willingness among our partners to address some of the hard lessons that we learnt in the United Kingdom during the recent recession. Three points in particular were generally accepted. The first is that there is a long-term upward structural trend in unemployment in addition to the cyclical effect of the recession. Secondly, on present forecasts, the cost of social provisions is likely to exceed the capacity to meet them in all the main industrial economies and, thirdly, that deregulation and labour market flexibility are vital to get unemployment down.

    It was agreed that Europe should implement the firm budgetary and other measures needed to facilitate the rapid reductions in interest rates that are now required in many countries on the continent. In north America, strong action was being taken to bring down fiscal deficits over the medium term with the objective of securing higher saving and investment. Japan, meanwhile, will implement fiscal and monetary measures to ensure sustained growth led by strong domestic demand. That will help to reduce Japan’s large current account surplus. Each of those measures is intended to help growth around the world. The summit’s accent on jobs was reflected in agreement to send high-level representatives to a special meeting that President Clinton is convening in the autumn. That will study the causes of unemployment and pool experience in seeking solutions.

    In April, the Group of Seven put together an unprecedented set of measures to help Russia through its deep transformation. At Tokyo, the Heads of Government confirmed that approach and noted that some large financial flows were already being made available, including $1 billion in a new IMF facility. We set out a programme worth some $3 billion to help privatisation and restructuring. There are now some encouraging signs of a spreading enterprise culture in Russia. The summit leaders told President Yeltsin that they were determined to sustain the huge support that they had given reform in his country. Of equal importance, we have reinforced our political partnership with Russia. As an innovation this year, our agenda included a joint review with President Yeltsin of international problems. At my suggestion, the meeting concluded with an invitation to the Russian President to join us again next year in Italy.

    The political declaration touches on many of the problems we discussed with President Yeltsin, or beforehand among the Seven. We supported a negotiated settlement for Bosnia, but only on the basis that it would be acceptable to the Muslim people and not imposed on them. We highlighted the importance of the non-proliferation treaty, supported the constitutional talks in South Africa and expressed concern about the behaviour of Iraq, Iran and Libya.

    The summit paid close attention to problems of the developing world and of the environment. I secured agreement that improved debt reduction terms should be considered for the poorest and most indebted countries. I hope that that will carry implementation of the Trinidad terms further. On the environment, the summit reaffirmed its commitment to sustainable development and implementation of the Rio decisions.

    Finally, a word about the summit process itself. Over 19 meetings, the summits have evolved from an informal discussion between Heads of Government into an enormously expensive and, in my view, over-structured international event. I believe that radical change is necessary if we are to get the best out of the summit process. I proposed innovations last year and I made further proposals in Tokyo. These were widely supported. I hope that, as a result, future summits will be more informal, less pre-prepared and will provide even more opportunities for spontaneous discussion between the summit Heads. Despite the procedural weaknesses I have mentioned, the Tokyo summit produced results of particular benefit to the United Kingdom as an exporting nation and a leading advocate of free trade. It concentrated on problems that are causing deep concern not just in this country, but around the world. It helped to bring leaders who are addressing those problems in common closer together. It laid the groundwork, I believe, for productive work at future summits.

    Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East): I thank the Prime Minister for making this report to the House.

    We welcome the recognition by the Group of Seven that there is insufficient growth and too much unemployment in their economies. In particular, we welcome President Clinton’s proposal for a special employment summit this autumn.

    Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when similar issues were raised at the summit last year by the then French Government, he was, as was noted in Saturday’s issue of The Independent, brusquely dismissive of the idea of unemployment being discussed, apparently saying:

    “What for, if we can’t do anything about it?”

    Does the right hon. Gentleman now accept the need for closely co-ordinated international action to promote growth and employment, and that such action must be taken at the European level? Would not it be a good lead to others for Britain now to cut interest rates? Would not that also be very much in Britain’s interests, given last week’s warnings by Midland Montagu, among others, that recovery in our economy will flag unless there is a further cut in base rates? I welcome what the Prime Minister said about the progress that has been made on the GATT. Will he explain, however, why two of the critical issues–agriculture and trade and services–were ignored at the summit? Although valuable progress has been made in the quad talks to which he referred, all the agreements depend on a successful outcome on the difficult fronts. Why was agriculture ignored when the main protagonists in the dispute–France, the United States and Japan–were all around the same table?

    Does not the Prime Minister recall that the G7 countries have promised to settle the issue in every summit since Houston four years ago, and that two years ago, at the London summit, the right hon. Gentleman himself pledged to remain personally involved in the process,

    “ready to intervene if differences can only be resolved at the highest level”?

    Why was the subject dodged at Tokyo?

    Opposition Members also welcome the continued economic assistance for Russia ; but is it not strange that the $4 billion package agreed by the G7 in April has now shrunk to $3 billion? Why has that happened, and what message is meant to be conveyed by such a startling reduction in such a short time? Was any consideration given to assistance for the Ukraine, especially in the light of its genuine economic difficulties and the vital importance of its accepting the arms reductions agreed under the strategic arms reduction treaties?

    Does the Prime Minister appreciate that there will be disappointment–in many parts of the House, I hope–that full agreement on the Trinidad terms of official debt reduction has still to be reached by all the G7 countries, and in particular by Japan? Should not consideration now be given to extending the principle of debt relief from bilateral to multilateral official loans, especially those of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank? Can that be put firmly on the G7 agenda?

    We welcome the recognition in the declaration of the danger of nuclear proliferation and the vital importance of the non-proliferation treaty. Would not the process be assisted, however, if a comprehensive test ban treaty could be agreed? Will the Prime Minister join me in strongly welcoming the United States’ decision to extend its own ban on tests by a further year?

    Does the Prime Minister understand the depth of feeling, in this country and throughout the world, about the disastrous turn of events in the former Yugoslavia–which, I believe, merited only one sentence in his statement? Does he appreciate the incomprehension at the complete failure of the international community to address its responsibilities in Bosnia? As we speak, the Serbian siege threatens to overwhelm Sarajevo. How does the Prime Minister think the inhabitants of that city feel about the evasive platitudes of the G7 declaration? Have they not heard it all before? Meanwhile, Serb and Croat aggression continues unchecked.

    Are we not in a parlous state when the whole United Nations effort–both humanitarian relief and peacekeeping–is stalling because of inadequate resources and support from the international community? Instead of vague threats such as

    “Stronger measures are not excluded”–

    which the Foreign Secretary got into such a mess trying to explain–should we not hear a commitment to action, such as the use of air strikes, to make the aggressors understand that the international community will no longer tolerate the defiance of United Nations authority and the dismembering of Bosnia?

    Why are not sanctions against Serbia being toughened, and why are not sanctions being imposed on Croatia? Why are extra troops and greater resources denied to the United Nations in the field? Why is there no resolve to make safe areas the haven that they should be for the innocent sufferers in this bloody conflict?

    Has not the summit generally failed to fulfil its exaggerated promises of success, and, in the case of Bosnia, completely avoided its fundamental responsibilities?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman was uncharacteristically negative, but I shall endeavour to deal with the points that he made. I am grateful for the welcome that he gave to parts of the agreement that have been reached. Whatever cross-party support is available is always helpful on these occasions internationally.

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the report in The Independent. As is so often the case with newspaper reports, I am a little baffled by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was quoting from, or what he might mean by it. [Interruption.] Well, he probably quoted something that was inaccurately reported. As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question regarding co-ordinated action on unemployment at the European level, I refer him to the report that I gave on the Copenhagen summit some time ago, to which I believe he responded.

    I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a long way to go on the Uruguay round. I specifically made that point. It was necessary to get the access agreement settled so that we could return to everybody negotiating, yet again, for both services and agriculture, where there are extremely difficult problems to be solved. What is vital is that, as a result of the agreement reached in Tokyo, the multilateral negotiations have started again this morning.

    Whatever agreements may be reached by the quad, they are only a part of all the countries which finally have to reach agreement in terms of the Uruguay round. I have made the point on many occasions that each G7 summit since Houston has sought an agreement on the Uruguay round. It was for that reason that on a number of occasions in the last six months I approached other Heads of Government to try to push the negotiations along further, including a meeting that I had with the President of the Commission in the autumn of last year. I have therefore, as I said I would, remained personally involved in this matter, and I propose to do so for one reason above all others. I believe that there is nothing more important internationally at the moment than a satisfactory outcome to the Uruguay discussions, for such an outcome will increase growth and create jobs in this country and around the world. I believe that that is vital. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman shares that view.

    On the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s questions about Russia, the $4 billion to which he referred that had been spoken of in April was an aim suggested by one member. It was not an agreement. We have agreed on $3 billion. No one is forthcoming with resources beyond that. When I met President Yeltsin at breakfast, and subsequently, he seemed to regard that as a very substantial contribution, and one for which he was extremely grateful. He did not have the reservations expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about it. As for the Ukraine, we are helping the Ukraine bilaterally. The reason for the inability to help the Ukraine multilaterally is that it has not reached an IMF agreement. If it is able to reach an IMF agreement, the prospect of further multilateral assistance is certainly necessary. The point made about arms reduction in the Ukraine is important. It was a point that we discussed, and it was discussed on previous occasions. It is a problem of immense complexity that we shall need to continue to address.

    As for the Trinidad terms, Japan has always had a rooted objection to writing off debt. Japan is prepared to extend debt, but for its own internal accounting reasons it is deeply reluctant to write it off. The United States has often had the same difficulty. However, it has now established the principle of debt relief and will be meeting the Trinidad terms. That is a distinct move forward.

    We agreed, as a result of discussions, that we would ask the Paris Club to look afresh at further help for the poorest countries. That will involve the Trinidad terms countries in particular. I expressed the view that I hoped that it would look at going well beyond the Trinidad terms and writing off a large proportion of the total stock of debt, not just the stock of debt that becomes due for repayment during the period of an IMF agreement. That would be a substantial addition to write-off for the poorest countries in the world. We shall continue to push for that in the Paris Club.

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a comprehensive test ban treaty. That does remain a long-term aim. I hope that in due course we shall be able to achieve it.

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised a series of points on Bosnia, points that he has raised on previous occasions. I am not sure that there is anything fresh in what he has said today. Although he was quite long on questions, he seemed to me to be a little short on solutions. It may be that he has lost touch with some of the events that are occurring on the ground. In respect of humanitarian aid, he will perhaps have noticed that even this morning my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Chalker announced a further £18.5 million worth of humanitarian aid from the United Kingdom to help people in Bosnia.

    Mr. John Watts (Slough): Did my right hon. Friend impress on the other European Community Heads of State and, in particular, on the President of the Commission, Mr. Delors, that if they are at all serious about reducing unemployment and improving employment prospects they should immediately abandon the social chapter and all similar policies, which would impose unnecessary costs on industry and commerce?

    The Prime Minister: I am extremely sorry to say that Mr. Delors was unwell and was not therefore at the summit. He was represented by Mr. Christophersen, the Vice-President of the Commission, who is aware of the United Kingdom’s views on the social chapter. We did not specifically discuss it, but he is in no doubt whatsoever that we believe that the social chapter would cost jobs, not create them.

    Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): I thank the Prime Minister for having met an all-party group to discuss the Trinidad terms before he left for the Tokyo summit. How soon does he expect some results from the initiatives that he took at the summit? Secondly, am I correct in understanding that none of the announced tariff cuts will take effect until the Uruguay round of the GATT talks has been completed, and should we not keep that in perspective?

    Thirdly, on Bosnia, will the Prime Minister accept that neither the strong words of the G7 nor the humanitarian package announced this morning will do anything to help the potentially murderous siege of Sarajevo unless the United Nations troops on the ground are authorised and reinforced with resources by their Governments to enable them to break that siege?

    The Prime Minister: On the three points that the right hon. Gentleman made, I hope that the Paris Club will begin soon to discuss the question of further debt relief. How rapidly it will reach a conclusion I am afraid I cannot anticipate. The United Kingdom will push for a comprehensive solution as speedily as possible, but we have run into difficulties. People believe that we have been a little ahead of them in seeking debt reduction in Toronto terms three or four years ago, in Trinidad terms a couple of years ago and now. There are distinct difficulties in other countries. It is possible for some countries to move ahead unilaterally, as we ourselves have done from time to time in the past, but that then diminishes the capacity of those countries to seek what the debtor countries most need, which is a comprehensive write-off of debt by the Paris Club and, where appropriate, by the London Club as well in terms of commercial debt.

    One of the points that I hope all our partners will recognise is that there is no incentive whatsoever for many of the poorer countries to continue to try to lift themselves out of their present difficulties if every element of their increased prosperity is then utilised to pay off an increasing level of debt interest on an increasing capital sum. I hope that it will be possible to have a substantial write-off.

    On tariff reductions, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right : nothing, in the famous terms, is agreed until everything is agreed. The hope and expectation is that the deadline will be in the middle of December–

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Again.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says, “Again”, and he is right to be sceptical about it. We have done it, but we now have movement that we have not seen in the past with the fast track renewal in the United States and the breakthrough on access talks. I hope that we will get it concluded in December of this year. On the question of Sarajevo, the right hon. Gentleman knows the Government’s position. I am not in a position to offer fresh troops.

    Mr. John Biffen (Shropshire, North): The Prime Minister has clearly had a most excellent Tokyo summit, but may I congratulate him in particular on the work that he intends to undertake to make such gatherings much less structured and, hopefully, much less frequent? Is he aware that in certain circumstances travel narrows the mind and that there is nothing more absurd in the current circumstances than a gathering of the world’s elite, discussing the nobility of its aims, at a time when right across north America and Europe there is an all-time record gap between the perceptions of Government and governed?

    The Prime Minister: I strongly share the views expressed by my right hon. Friend. It may be that one of the reasons for that gap between the public and the politicians is an excess of summit fatigue, where people meet together without a realistic expectation of actually achieving what may have been expected from a summit of that sort.

    I am delighted that colleagues have accepted many of the ideas for simplifying the summit process. I must confess that I did not achieve all the ideas that I wanted. I say with some trepidation, with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sitting beside me, that I had hoped to restrict the summit to Heads of Government only and not Foreign Ministers and Finance Ministers. However, those of our colleagues with coalition Governments felt that they should continue to attend.

    Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne): Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the advantages of these summits is revisiting, again and again, the continuing problems that face the world? Will he accept that what is needed now is the necessary pressure on Japan to reduce its balance of payments surplus and the essential requirement to move the GATT forward? The excessive trumpeting of success does not suggest that we have the GATT problem fully in mind.

    The Prime Minister: We are well aware of the importance of the GATT round and no one in this House has been in any doubt about that for the past two years. Well over 100 nations are engaged in the Uruguay round talks. That makes it extremely difficult to reach agreement. As I indicated earlier, the talks are much wider and much more comprehensive than any previous trade talks. They include services and agriculture, and that has not been the case in the past. Those extensions are very welcome.

    One point which deserves to be made is that many of the Cairns group of countries–in industrial terms, rather smaller countries–reached their GATT agreements three, four or five years ago and they have held to them. Their frustration at the difficulty of the United States and Europe in sticking to agreements that they reached months ago is entirely justified. I very much hope that we will be able to do that and also reach an agreement.

    The point about revisiting problems is entirely right. However, it is not desirable to revisit them on occasions when there seems to be no practical opportunity of doing anything about them unless the revisiting is on the basis that I have proposed for the future–much more informal discussions.

    Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while the agreements in Tokyo are to be welcomed, there is no question but that a general reduction in tariffs is to be preferred to a series of bilateral agreements reached between different countries such as the United States and Japan? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main purpose must be to achieve a reduction and success in the Uruguay round in agriculture? Will he confirm that no single country has the right of veto in such negotiations?

    The Prime Minister: I would certainly confirm that. In terms of the European Community, an agriculture agreement is available by qualified majority vote. One hopes that that would not be necessary and I hope that, at the end of the negotiations, the advantages there for every western European country in industrial matters will ensure that no one would seek to block it on the grounds of agriculture. We need an agreement on agriculture. It will be a novelty to have one and it would be a very remarkable breakthrough if it were achieved. With regard to my right hon. Friend’s earlier point, a general agreement is infinitely to be preferred to bilateral agreements. Bilateral agreements are of little help to many of the developing countries.

    Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton): In his bilateral talks with President Clinton, did the Prime Minister discuss the United States ban on British nuclear tests in Nevada? Did he remind President Clinton that a year and a quarter ago this Government told the country that nuclear tests were indispensable to British security? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether British nuclear tests are still indispensable to British security, and will he give a clear yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: In fact, I discussed that with President Clinton a few days before we went to Tokyo and we spent some time discussing it. The ban has been extended for a further year. We will wait and see whether other people outside the United States sphere of influence continue testing, in which case I think that the United States and we would as well. In that year, we are seeing whether we can find alternative ways of managing without the necessity for the tests. Some think that we can do that and we are still examining that. The scientists are as yet uncertain. I hope that it will be possible.

    Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South): Although I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a very successful summit, may I press him again on Bosnia? Does he accept that, since the Washington declaration, events have deteriorated markedly, that no extra protection has been given to those in safe havens, and in Sarajevo in particular, and that that great European city stands on the brink of total collapse in the most atrocious conditions seen anywhere in Europe since the end of the second world war? There were some tough words in the declaration on Bosnia. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to say that they will be followed by action to try to save Sarajevo?

    The Prime Minister: The Secretary-General, as my hon. Friend will know, is actually mustering troops at the moment in terms of the resolution, the number of which escapes me for the moment, on safe areas which was passed some time ago. We ourselves have provided troops; we have had troops in Bosnia for some time. We look forward to other people doing so as well so that that resolution can be carried out.

    Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead): Given the importance of the level of world trade to British prosperity, may I welcome the small but important movements in the GATT negotiations that the Prime Minister announced this afternoon? May I remind the Prime Minister of the answer that he gave recently to the House, that one of the Government’s objectives was to establish full employment? Is he aware that it is a long time since the House has heard that as an objective of Her Majesty’s Government? Does the Prime Minister accept that, although many people have very useful ideas on how we could marginally increase the number in employment, nobody but nobody in the western world has any idea how to achieve his objective? When Britain faced exactly the same situation in the 1930s, the then Prime Minister sounded a note of urgency by initiating a national debate and having that debate reporting directly to him. Will he consider a similar initiative so that when the British delegates go to Camp David they can go armed with new ideas, bringing hope to our constituents, some of whom have waited 10 years or more in the dole queues, rather than acting as mere intellectual bag carriers of other nations?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he had to say in his opening remarks about GATT. It was, of course, this country that raised at Copenhagen the significant question of employment across Europe and the long-term trend.

    What is of increasing concern when one strips away the effect even of the recession is that right the way across Europe–not just in this country but right the way across Europe–from about 1970, under Governments of both parties, and at one stage two parties at once, there has been a general increase in unemployment. Worse than that, there has been a corresponding increase in long-term unemployment that is centred particularly upon low- skilled or unskilled males. That is not a British phenomenon; it is a phenomenon that one can see to a greater or lesser degree across the whole of the industrialised world, with the exception of Japan, where different circumstances apply.

    We did raise the issue in Copenhagen. I raised it again in Japan. We will most certainly contribute forcefully both to the White Paper in Europe and President Clinton’s discussions later on this year. Some jobs will certainly be created by supply side reform, some by growth, but there is not an automatic equalisation between growth and jobs, as hon. Members will realise. On any That is certainly our objective.

    Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): As the substantial and exciting tariff reductions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister fought so hard to achieve can be frustrated if the GATT round breaks down, what on earth can we do if the European Community is unwilling to reduce its agricultural expenditure which is currently beating every previous record, with the mountains of food breaking every previous record? Would it not greatly help the GATT discussions that the Prime Minister has worked so splendidly on if some member state within the EC would propose that either the CAP should be scrapped or that individual nations should be entitled to disengage from it? Would not that help my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the fantastically good job that he did at Tokyo?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful contribution. The Government agree with him on the need for CAP reform, and there has been some reform of the common agricultural policy. No doubt more will be necessary, but we will certainly endeavour to persuade all our European partners not to stand in the way of a comprehensive trade agreement.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): In his opening statement, the Prime Minister referred to discussions on the behaviour of Iraq. What hard evidence did either the Americans or President Clinton give about the involvement of the Iraqi state in the so-called attempted assassination of President Bush in Kuwait? Is it likely, if it was Saddam Hussein’s handiwork, that the would-be assassins would run out of petrol and not know where the university of Kuwait was? Will he be very careful before endorsing further military action and the launching of missiles on Baghdad?

    The Prime Minister: I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the remarks concerning the behaviour of Iraq that were made recently by Ms Albright at the Security Council of the United Nations, which I think he will find of some interest. In the past couple of days, we have also seen obstruction of the United Nations weapons inspectors. I think that is a provocation. It stands in stark contrast to Iraq’s obligations under Security Council resolutions and, clearly, that matter will now have to go back to the Security Council.

    Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey): May I ask my right hon. Friend– who always represents Britain at meetings of Heads of Government with distinction–a similar question to that which I asked him when he returned recently from the European summit in Copenhagen? What is the point of repeated high-flown communiques drawing attention to the urgent need to reduce unemployment, when its principal creator, the central bank of Germany, is outside democratic control? Has my right hon. Friend, with his usual tact, reminded his German colleagues of the fact that it was not inflation but unemployment that brought down the Weimar Republic and put Adolf Hitler into power?

    The Prime Minister: I cannot say that I made that particular point in that fashion at the summit discussions, but we indicated the importance that we attach to unemployment when we were in Copenhagen, bilaterally with other European and other Heads of Government, and again in Japan. I think there is a level of understanding about the concern that people feel about the problem that did not exist even a few months ago. I know that my hon. Friend’s remarks will be read carefully in other places.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Is not there an air of unreality about the fact that the Prime Minister had to go all the way to Tokyo to tell us that they have discovered unemployment in Britain? If he had asked in any region of the British Isles, he would have found out that everyone knows that there is a lot of unemployment in Britain. Instead of swapping advice with other Heads of State about how to fiddle the figures in different countries, and talking about level economic playing fields when there cannot be such a thing in the world, why does not he do something here at home, and save the pits, stop shutting the shipyards, save the engineering base, reintroduce exchange controls and introduce import controls? That is the way to save jobs in Britain.

    The Prime Minister: I am sure that someone would have made a similar speech following the invention of the wheel.

    Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West): Did my right hon. Friend make it clear at the summit that there will be no deeper involvement of our limited forces in Bosnia, or any mad adventure there, notwithstanding the blandishments of the armchair television warriors on the other side of the House? Will he suggest to them that, if they want a deeper involvement, they had better go out there and serve themselves?

    The Prime Minister: I have said on a number of occasions that we have made a contribution in terms of troops to humanitarian aid. There has been a call by the United Nations for more troops. I think that that call should be met by those countries that have not yet contributed.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): While I recognise that every Member of the House will welcome the fact that the GATT round of talks seems to be under way again, will the Prime Minister say whether he believes in his heart of hearts that a conclusion can be reached by mid December?

    As to the agreement on Scotch whisky reached by the quadrilateral partners, does the Prime Minister accept that throwaway remarks suggesting that it will be to the benefit of Scotland really mean that it will be to the benefit of the Exchequer? While the agreement may help to retain jobs in the whisky industry in Scotland, it will not create them. The issue underpinning that industry, which is a major exporter, is the need to eradicate the internal excise duty levied by Japan, which disadvantages Scotch whisky and other spirits produced in this country by £4 to £6.

    The Prime Minister: As to the hon. Lady’s first point, I think that a settlement can be reached. I cannot be certain because many complex matters have yet to be determined. I am in no doubt now that one can be reached, and I am delighted that the talks in Geneva recommenced this morning.

    As the hon. Lady said, there are two elements in the difficulties faced by Scotch whisky in the Japanese market. One is the external tariff. When a settlement is reached, it will disappear entirely–100 per cent. of the external tariff will go. The other is the internal taxation level. We have been pursuing with the Japanese–and I did so again with Prime Minister Miyazawa–the high level of taxation on Scotch whisky. We will continue to do that in the hope of having it reduced. There has already been a significant reduction, or there will be, with the removal of the external tariff.

    As I said in my statement, £170 million of exports go to Japan. As Scotch whisky will in future be cheaper, it is likely that exports will increase. That will certainly safeguard jobs, and I am not sure why the hon. Lady is so certain that it will not create them as well.

    Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is my right hon. Friend aware that perhaps the most popular policy being pursued by his Government at the moment is that of deregulation? It would be even more popular if it were more widely known. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he was able to persuade his G7 partners that that is a popular and necessary part of a world policy, which will make the lives of small businesses in particular rather more fruitful in future?

    The Prime Minister: They seemed persuaded. We shall see whether action follows the gentle response when I made that point in discussions. I believe that there is an understanding that there need to be supply side changes to create employment. One important change, as my hon. Friend said, is deregulation.

    Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles): On the question of Bosnia, the Prime Minister has sometimes given the impression that all the expert advice that he receives is that the west should not get involved in using military force to deter territorial aggression, first in Croatia and then in Bosnia. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether that is the uniform advice that he is receiving, or do senior diplomatic and military figures say that we could and should use military force to stop the slaughter in the former Yugoslavia?

    The Prime Minister: I have received no advice either from senior diplomats or from military figures that a solution could be imposed by military force.

    Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of my constituents, who are heavily involved in the textile and agriculture industries, on the results of the Tokyo summit? We are pleased at the 50 per cent. reduction in textile tariffs as against the United States. However, if that agreement cannot be put in place by December, does he understand that there will be a need for further reductions in the 50 per cent. tariff ratio so that we may achieve far better exports of British textile goods to the United States.

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that we will achieve the settlement by December. In any event, that is not the end of the matter. Although a 50 per cent. reduction in tariffs is certainly welcome, we would have preferred a larger reduction–but that was what was negotiable on that particular occasion. I hope that we will return to that matter and seek an even larger reduction in the tariff, up to its complete elimination.

    Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool): Perhaps I may pursue the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), in response to which the Prime Minister seemed to be well intentioned and sincere in his desire to reduce unemployment but vague as to what he would do. Will the right hon. Gentleman share with the House a little more what new specific policy and initiatives the Government are currently examining which they may take to any new employment summit in the autumn?

    The Prime Minister: As I said earlier, there was a range of matters to deal with unemployment. One is deregulation, which has just been mentioned. Not to impose extra costs on employers, as the social chapter would, is a second illustration of what needs to be done. Other measures include policies that will enable the economy to grow–as we have been seeking to do–and to protect capital investment, as we did in the previous public expenditure round. There are also the international macro points that I mentioned earlier : the United States is tackling its budget deficit, Japan will continue to support domestic demand as necessary, and in continental Europe there will be a move towards a reduction in interest rates. The necessity and attraction of closing the fiscal deficit in this country, as in other countries, is that it will be easier to make further interest rate reductions.

    Dr. Ian Twinn (Edmonton): Is my right hon. Friend aware of the positive and warm support he receives from Conservative Members for the achievements of the summit, especially the progress towards freer world trade and the greater advantage that that will have for our manufacturing industry? Will he now renew his efforts among our European partners to ensure that they all share our enthusiasm for free world trade?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I will certainly do that. A number of our European partners are also firm advocates of free trade. There are one or two who are slightly less firm in their advocacy and we shall endeavour to encourage them. We are not the only advocates of free trade in Europe; a number of other nations wholly share our views.

    Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): How much of the money that has been allocated to Russia will go towards helping to dismantle its nuclear weapons? Would not it impress the other G7 countries if, instead of talking about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in glowing terms, the Prime Minister did something about it by introducing a programme in the United Kingdom to shift our manufacturing base away from producing weapons of war to manufacturing for peace and getting rid of Trident nuclear weapons? On the basis of his argument, our jobs will depend on either the manufacture or maintenance of weapons of mass extermination for the next 20 years. Is that his policy?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman refers to weapons of mass extermination, when nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to protect the nation. That is their purpose. If the hon. Gentleman is so keen for us not to manufacture them, I hope that he will make that point equally clearly in Barrow and Devonport and that he has previously made it in Rosyth. His point rings with a rather curious air against representations made by many of his hon. Friends during recent months.

    Mr. Cryer: What about diversification?

    The Prime Minister: On the question of Russia, to which I was just coming, we are already helping the Russians with the transport of nuclear weapons and with technical help on their destruction. That is of importance to Russia, and, as his right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition mentioned earlier, it is important to Ukraine, where further progress needs to be made.

    Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South): As my constituency is not far from that of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and as it produces pharmaceuticals, chemicals, engineering products and other products that fall into the eight areas on which, it has been agreed, tariffs will not be imposed in the future, may I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on negotiating away those tariffs ? I hope that he will bring as much pressure to bear as he can to end the GATT round as soon as possible.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly undertake to do that, and I am grateful for his earlier remarks.

    Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North): I noted with interest the Prime Minister’s reference to the Rio accord, which is intended to underpin all economic and trade policies henceforth. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is aware that a recent United States district court ruling meant that the north American free trade agreement could not be ratified because it did not include an environmental impact statement. Is not it possible that a similar fate might await the GATT agreement and that that could unravel the whole round? In that case, will the Prime Minister give some detail about the nature of the environmental discussion in Tokyo and the effect on the agreement there?

    The Prime Minister: One of the significant points made in the discussion on the environment at Tokyo was that President Clinton pledged himself wholeheartedly to the Rio accords. That was a shift of policy for the United States and one that was very welcome. As the hon. Gentleman may know, much work has been going on following Rio to produce national plans for sustainable development, for dealing with climate change, for biodiversity and for forests by the end of 1993. There have been meetings of the United Nations commission on sustainable development; the most recent was in New York last month. Developed and developing countries are now working together actively to put the Rio commitments into practice. Rio is becoming a reality.

    Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the issues that figured most prominently at Tokyo, such as cutting deficits, deregulation and improving the flexibility of the labour market, were issues of British concern? Just as at Copenhagen, the agenda reflected Britain’s concerns. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that there is growing evidence that Britain’s case is prevailing, both in Europe and in the rest of the world?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that point. It was very striking in the Copenhagen discussions just a few weeks ago and it was equally evident in our discussions in Tokyo last week. One of the reasons for that is that we went into the recession earlier than many other countries did. There is nothing like a recession to concentrate people’s minds on the reality of what needs to be done. Many countries, now that they are entering recession, are having to look, just as we have done, at some very hard decisions to help people and to recreate jobs.

    Mr. John Spellar (Warley, West): The Prime Minister conceded earlier that Japan was not experiencing high levels of unemployment. While he was in Tokyo, did he take the opportunity to look at what is happening in Japan? Did he notice, for example, that the Japanese are spending $70 billion in public works programmes to expand the economy? Did he notice that Japanese employers are trying to hold on to their workers and are not taking every opportunity to cut the work force? Did he notice that they are not as obsessed with the flexible labour market ideology? In fact, the Japanese Government and Japanese employers cannot understand all the fuss about the social market. Did the Prime Minister notice that, in spite of all that, it is the Japanese who have the substantial balance of payments surplus and that it is we who have the balance of payments deficit? When will he abandon the outdated Thatcherite philosophy and look at what really works in this world?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may care to study Japan a little more closely before he entirely advocates that. He might, for example, not be entirely happy if we reduced our public spending share of gross domestic product to the Japanese level. That would make a significant difference and one that would be pretty unwelcome to the hon. Gentleman. If he looked at the social costs in Japan, he might also be just a little less enthusiastic. If he looked at some of the wage levels in parts of Japan, he might be a good deal less enthusiastic. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman spends his holiday in Japan.

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    In short, why does it matter?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    You are confident the Community will agree it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    It is deregulation really?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Association of American Correspondents – 30 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Association of American Correspondents, held at Brown’s Hotel on Wednesday 30th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What I want to know is, when they shoot the wounded, why do they miss so often. I was just leaving Downing Street forty five minutes or so ago and a parcel arrived. I opened it and inside was a watch and it had an inscription on the back but discretion has taught me that you don’t read out inscriptions in future.

    We’ve been talking casually over lunch and as part of the conversation, one of my visits to Kennebunkport came up. I remember going there. They were marvellous hosts, George and Barbara Bush. Extremely good company, you never knew quite what was going to happen. But they were extremely good company in every respect.

    One evening at the end of a long day, we went in a lounge there, a huge lounge and the whole of one wall converted to a large screen, a large cinema screen. And they showed a very remarkable film. Some of you may have seen it, called Patriot Games. It was a great piece of diplomacy. It’s the story of a plot to kill a British minister and I was sitting there watching it with my Private Secretary and Press Secretary. And of course the villain, the murderer, turns out to be the Private Secretary and the terrorist was a man named O’Donnell. So I said to the President that I think he scored double top on that particular occasion.

    Let me just take you back a while, just test your memory as we slip away from some of the extraneous matters that have intruded into politics over the past few months. There has been something of a frenzied atmosphere in Capitals all round the world, not just in the United Kingdom. I think, dare I say it, from time to time there has been a slightly frenzied attitude in Washington, Tokyo, in Bonn, in Paris, in Rome and perhaps in any number of other countries I might mention. But in the midst of that in the United Kingdom, some fairly important things have happened.

    If I had come here just fifteen months ago and said to you on that occasion, let me make a few predictions: I will come back and see you at the end of June in 1993. And when I come back and see you at that time, interest rates will be down at 6 per cent. Inflation will be down at 1.3 per cent and our exports will be growing faster than we’ve ever seen before and faster than anywhere else in the European Community. We’ll have the most competitive exchange rate we’ve had for a very long time. We’ll have potentially the greatest growth rate in the European Community this year. The greatest growth rate forecast for next year. Unemployment will not reach three million. And by the time I come and see you in June 1993 it will be falling for four successive months when right the way across the rest of Europe, in our principal markets, unemployment is rising, growth is falling and so many of them are heading into recession.

    Now if I had said that to you, you might perhaps have called for the men in white coats to have me carted off to the funny farm. If I’d added to that, and said in the Parliamentary Session drawing to a close in June 1993, we would have carried all our legislations, often against little local difficulties. Hugely important and reforming Bills on housing, on education, on lotteries, on asylum, on the de-nationalisation, forget that ugly word privatisation, it’s de-nationalisation of British Rail. And also, despite the occasional tiny split in my own Party, the Maastricht Bill would have gone right the way through the House of Commons and would be receiving average majorities of over 150 on the votes it faces in the House of Lords. If I’d added that, you would undoubtedly have said, this guy has taken leave of his senses.

    Yet that is the reality when you strip away the nonsense that has be-devilled so much of our national interest over recent months.

    That is the reality of what is happening.

    And then, there’s another fundamental change that has taken place.

    Out there, all the way around the United Kingdom, if you tap people on the shoulder they’ll say of me. Why does he spend so much time on foreign affairs? Why is he bothering about Europe? What about our problems here at home? But the reality for our country now, as it has been for some years, and will be in the future, is that the European market is our own home backyard in terms of exports, in terms of investment and in terms of prosperity.

    And what has happened in the last two years in Europe has been very profound, very striking.

    I believe the whole nature and tilt of European policy has begun to move. And it has begun to move in a direction that we British have been pushing for, for some time.

    Try and put it in context for a moment. For so much of the 1980’s, the European Community was bouncing along, 3 per cent plus growth a year. It’s not all that long ago in two of the European countries, Portugal and Spain, that the countries were actually led by men in dark glasses and epaulettes. And one was worrying as to whether they would actually be safe for democracy when they headed the community in the early 1980’s. And yet they are.

    Spain, despite its present difficulties, has immeasurably improved its position over the last decade and so has Portugal.

    We have now seen in the last couple of years some changes in European policy profoundly important for Europe and profoundly important for this country.

    The first of them is the enlargement of the community. The Community has now agreed, the British have pushed it and pushed and pushed it and the Community has accepted, that the four EFTAN countries can enter the community, subject to negotiations being satisfactory, by 1 January 1995. A good deal earlier than many people anticipated. Many would have pushed it aside for their own domestic reasons. We have won that argument, they are coming in, subject to their own domestic approvals, they’ll be in the community by 1 January 1995.

    Four extra countries enlarging the community from twelve to sixteen and all of them net contributors to the community budget.

    For the first time ever in the European Communities history, about one half of all the member states will be net contributors to the budget, not net beneficiaries from the large contributions of the Germans, the British and the French.

    And that begins to change the tilt and balance of interests in the community in a more sensible and pragmatic way in terms of looking at its own financial future.

    And then of course there is the remarkable change. The new realism that I think was very evident in the debates we had in Copenhagen. Alas, in this country rather overshadowed by domestic matters. The debates there were at Copenhagen were about the future direction of European economic policy.

    I make no secret of the fact, that I believe we have to look ahead for a decade or more and address a problem that has been getting steadily worse right the way across Europe.

    Unemployment is a huge problem. We all know it. There’s been a huge hump in unemployment right the way across the community in the last two or three years. Seventeen million Europeans unemployed. In two years time it is likely to be twenty million Europeans unemployed.

    But that isn’t just a function of this current recession. Unemployment in Europe has been rising steadily, growth or not, for over twenty years. And it has been rising steadily for twenty years because Europe has become relatively less competitive over twenty years to the United States, Japan and of course to the Pacific Basin. Though I think separate criteria apply there.

    I won’t weary you with lots of statistics. Just let me give you one that is a start. Over twenty years the growth in Europe and the growth in the United States is pretty much the same. It should have produced the same number of jobs. But in fact for every single job created in Europe over twenty years, the United States have created four. I think the underlying reason they have done that is the flexibility of the United States’ economy and a lack of additional on-costs that has be-devilled the cost structure of so much of employment in Europe.

    So it isn’t a question of just being beastly and holding back on social costs, it is fundamental to the prosperity of the future of Europe, that the whole of Europe, not just the United Kingdom, grasps that nettle of competitiveness for the future. If they don’t, they will remain powerful and relatively rich. But relatively, over time, they will become less powerful, less influential and less wealthy. Unless across Europe they have the courage to actually address those problems.

    And it is for that I have been arguing in the European Community over recent years. And it is for that I will go on arguing.

    The other point, I think that has changed, very much in the direction we have wanted it to, is the size and shape of the Community, even beyond the growth of the EFTAN states.

    I see the European Community at the moment as, in truth, just a fragment of European community. It doesn’t yet take in our old friends in Central and Eastern Europe. Hungary, Czechlands, Slovak, in due course Romania, Bulgaria, Poland. In due course they must come into the community.

    In the last two years the British have managed to persuade our European partners that will happen. It won’t happen perhaps for a decade, but it is now agreed as a matter of European policy that in due course they will enter the Community. And for military, social and political reasons, I believe that is the right way ahead for the community to go.

    Let me move on to one or two other issues and skim over them just lightly so that I may leave the maximum amount of time for you to ask the questions you wish to ask rather than simply listen to what I wish to say.

    I think the United States were right to attack Baghdad. What I said publicly is what I believe privately. I have not a shred of reservation about it. The attempt to assassinate, in the way that occurred, a former President of the United States with the potential death of hundreds of other innocent people, who would just have been in that area, is an act of international terrorism. An act of international terrorism sponsored not by a group of international terrorists but by the Government of Iraq and by the dictator of Iraq.

    Faced with that I think the United States were absolutely right to retaliate and to attack in the way that they did. And they certainly have my wholehearted support. And I regret that support doesn’t spread, as it deserves to, across every strand of British politics.

    Let me just say a word about the G7 Summit that’s just coming up. There are a number of important issues that I think we have to address at the G7 Summit. Certainly I think we find it in our interests, as well as in Russia’s interests, to try and help the Russians as they go through the second Russian revolution this century. I wonder at the right way to do it.

    There is more than one way to do it and in many ways I think the most effective way is a wide-range of micro-economic assistance rather than macro-economic packages with no clear guidance as to what it will be used for or over what timescale it will be available.

    If one goes these days to Moscow and compares it to two years ago, you are beginning to see embedded in the system, the roots of private enterprise. Whereas there was once just a black market, there are now lots of little stalls selling goods that they’ve brought in from overseas. Things that simply wouldn’t have been available in Russia just two years ago are now available.

    Go into the stores where you wouldn’t have brought anything a few years ago, except perhaps as an illustration of how rotten everything they had was. You now find a wide range of, in many cases, quite high quality goods.

    There is a buzz, a feel, a moving place. Despite all the difficulties they have, it suggests that there is a realistic chance, and it will take a long time, it will take a long time, but a realistic chance that their hopes and aspirations to move to a mixed market economy may be beginning to take shallow root in Russia. And it is in our interests I think, on every count, to try and assist them.

    Then of course I think we must look at the desirability of settlement of the Uruguay Round. For some years, Heads of Government have gone to the G7. They have solemnly sat down and agreed at the end of that year they would have a GATT settlement. And the next year they have gone back and agreed that at the end of that year they would have a GATT settlement. It is beginning, frankly, to get a bit thin and I know the difficulties there will be only too well.

    Few have been in a better position to see what the difficulties are. But I do believe it is profoundly important that we begin to make progress with that agreement.

    If we find ourselves in a stand-off between any of the great trading nations to the extent that you then get protectionism and counter-protectionism and trade wars, there will be no winning for anyone. That will be a defeat for everyone and at this moment, when the thing the world economy most needs is confidence and the growth of trade, it would be folly for us not to bend every wit and will we have to try and find a settlement to the Uruguay Round.

    Maybe positions will have to be changed, people will have to take a long-term view and in many cases face difficulties in their own countries. But I think we need to address that very seriously and see what can be done.

    The other thing I just briefly want to touch on is the world economy. It is pretty sluggish. Indeed, in Europe, the United Kingdom is coming out of recession. Many of our European partners are going into recession. In some cases on a far greater scale than they could remember at any stage in the postwar period.

    If you look at Japan, the signals are conflicting. In Japan the Japanese economy is certainly not bounding along as one of the great entrants to the world economy in the way it has so often in the past.

    The United States looked as though it was coming sharply and clearly and powerfully out of recession a few months ago. It looks a good deal less like that now. And so one has, amongst three of the great engines of the world economy, the United States, Japan and Germany, none of them exactly giving that powerful pull out of sluggishness and recession that ideally we would wish to see to get trade going and see growth return to put more and more people back to work.

    So I think there are areas there. I don’t anticipate that we can sit round at the table in Tokyo and decide a new world economic order that is going to correct us. Nobody should imagine that is remotely going to happen. But I think we do have to look and see what the policies in different countries, that will lead to sustainable non-inflationary growth, that will, during the 1990’s, the most competitive decade we will ever have lived through, which ever part of the world we’re in, to see what is the best way to lift the economy up and out and back towards prosperity.

    Those are some of the things that I think we will be discussing, by no means an exclusive agenda, at the G7 in Tokyo.

    There are many other issues I could stray into. Many of them are lengthy and I think dealing with them trivially would perhaps be a mistake. What I will do, with your consent, is just leave it at that and answer any questions you may have either on the subjects I have raised or if you wish on any other subjects.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Tom Penther, CBS News):

    Prime Minister, if I could ask a broader question. As the United States withdraws from Europe and seems to be advocating its boardroom leadership, Bosnia is the obvious example. Who or what in Europe is going to build this back?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, there are two premises there. If I may examine them both.

    That the United States militarily is reducing its commitment to Europe. I think that’s probably right. Given the changed military and security structure in Europe, there isn’t the same land based threat that there once was from the Soviet Union. We haven’t got Russian troops on the very borders of West Germany anymore. They are right the other side of Russia and they’ve got an army that’s collapsing, and in the most appalling difficulties. The threat has wholly changed. But there will still be a very substantial United States presence in Europe. I would guess around 100,000 troops will remain. And I know of no suggestion that this administration or any alternative administration has any imminent likelihood of reducing below that 100,000.

    So it is a reduction in their physical presence in Europe. But I don’t believe it is an abdication of their instinctive and traditional role as part of European defence. I don’t believe that is the case, though you perhaps may feel you know your own fellow citizens better than I do but I don’t believe it is.

    As to America’s world role. The United States finds itself in a difficult position at the moment. Difficult in the sense that it is now the only superpower.

    When the United States had the old Soviet Union, there was a counter balance. People instinctively rallied to it, or they rallied against it. Now the counter balance is gone and in a curious way it leaves the United States much more exposed. It hasn’t got an enemy, I’ll put the word in inverted commas if I may, that it can push against in difficult times. It has actually got to exist in popular fact, solely upon its own policies without that limited aspect that so often helps Governments when they face difficulties.

    The present administration has got two problems on its plate. Neither of them of its own making, both of them hellishly difficult to deal with. Bosnia is quite literally a problem from hell and it is difficult to see quite what the United States could do to provide effective leadership.

    As far as the world economy is concerned, economies take a long time to respond to action. This one showed signs of being very powerful and has now fallen away. And it will take time for the administration to begin to put that right.

    I think that is an extraordinarily unfortunate conjunction of events for a new President to inherit. And I hope and believe that America will grapple with those immediate difficulties that it has. For I profoundly believe that it is very much in the interests of the free world, of the West in particular, that America, as the single great superpower, does exert a powerful leadership in the western world. I hope and expect that it will do so. I don’t believe there is any information to abdicate that role and I profoundly hope that there isn’t.

    QUESTION (Keith Brockwell, Journal of Commerce):

    Prime Minister, you mentioned the importance of getting an agreement in the Uruguay Round at the G7. When you arrive in Tokyo you will find there is no Japanese Government, the French have a pretty large chip on their shoulder and most of the other leaders that are there are looking at opinion polls that frankly they must consider to be pretty grim. How can these leaders summon the political will to make difficult choices, to change positions as you said, in very strategically, or in politically sensitive sectors that are needed to make to make a deal? And if this year after the last four years, the leaders are unable to do so, do you believe that the momentum can possibly be summoned to have another go?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the answer to the first part of the question is, look at what will happen if they don’t. I don’t expect that these matters are going to be easily solved and I’m certainly not saying they must be solved at Tokyo next week. Things rarely operate in that fashion. We must make sure the momentum goes on up to Tokyo, during Tokyo and through Tokyo. But nobody can expect that if they aren’t all solved at Tokyo, as I suspect they will not be, that is the end of the matter. We just have to continue.

    But despite the difficulties that you’ve set out more vividly than I might have done in public, the reality is that unless the leaders of those seven large industrial nations actually move towards a GATT agreement, there will not be one. And if there is not one, what lies the other side of that hill is potentially immensely damaging. And the closer one gets to those difficulties, the greater one sees the prize already there in those areas of GATT already agreed. The loss in losing that and the potential damage that could then come about if the whole Uruguay Round itself was not able to move forward.

    It was put very vividly to me the, the moral case for an agreement, by the President of one of the [inaudible] group countries, who came to see me, a relatively small country, and said: “what are you Americans and you Europeans playing at. We reached our agreements in the GATT round five years ago. The world has changed since then. We haven’t squealed and complained. We’ve stuck with it because we want a GATT agreement, we’re a relatively small nation. A few months ago the Americans and the Europeans struck a deal and now they’re both wondering whether they’re going to stick to it. Where does that put us when we have already stuck to the deal that we made four or five years ago?”

    Now I have to say to you that I have a lot of sympathy with that argument. And it isn’t just a question of the position of America and the position of Europe.

    A GATT deal is of acute importance to countries all the way round the world. There is no morality in saying to many of the small nations of the world, we Americans, we British, we French and we Germans are going to be frightfully generous with all this overseas aid. And while we’re giving you this overseas aid, a good deal of it tied to trade, we will actually close off our markets to your goods. So you can live off this overseas aid, today, tomorrow and for as far ahead as you can see.

    I believe that is a self defeating policy. At some stage we have got to liberate world trade, open markets and enable these smaller countries themselves to provide themselves by their own endeavours and not have a hand to mouth existence with aid from the rich countries in the West.

    And unless we do that, we will simply find that the rich countries of the West, over time, will not be rich enough to help these other nations.

    So although this argument is largely couched in economic terms, I have to say personally, I think there is a powerful moral case. If that is not a dangerous thing for a politician to say in public these days. There is a powerful moral case for a settlement of the GATT round in the interest of weak nations in Latin America, in Africa, in South East Asia and in many other parts of the globe and I think that is an argument that will need to surface at Tokyo and elsewhere in terms of discussion on the GATT round.

    QUESTION (Carla Rappaport, Fortune Magazine):

    I was very interested in your comments on employment. You praised America’s labour flexibility. The UK actually has one of the most flexible labour systems in Europe. Yet when I talk to economists about the recent [inaudible]. What more does Britain have to do, what is left to help the unemployment problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are a number of things that need doing. I certainly think there are some more supply side changes that we could make to free up unemployment.

    I think as a whole, the economy is too heavily over-regulated. That largely, politicians push that out and they say well that’s wicked Brussels sending lots of nasty directives over here. Up to a point that’s true. They do send lots of nasty directives over here. But on top of that we often tie a cap and bells to them when they get to Whitehall.

    We have some accident, and then there will be an inquiry, and then whoever conducts the inquiry makes 480 recommendations as to what might be done to ensure that such a thing never occurs again. They are faithfully enacted.

    If one asks a businessman, go out there and ask all the people running small and medium sized companies what inhibits them from growth, one of the things they will come back, almost invariably, and say to you is, the degree of regulation is too great.

    It is in this country less than in other European countries, but that is not the right measure. The question is, how does it compare with the United States and with Japan. That is the question. And the answer to that question is very badly. So I think there is a good deal more of supply side changes that still need to be carried through.

    I think the trade union changes have worked immensely successively and I think that is very good. But there are other changes. I think there is a good degree of deregulation. Like every other nation in Europe we have to look at our social on costs.

    We in the United Kingdom have seen a social budget that has absolutely soared and people rather say, well that’s unimportant. Up to a point, but only up to a point. If you strip all the unemployment costs out of our social budget and then look at the rest of our social security budget, I’ve put health to one side, just social security, social security rises year on year, almost inexorably by between three and three and a half per cent a year over and above the rate of inflation.

    Now that is the equivalent each year of about a penny ha’penny on income tax.

    Now that is happening, it’s happening all over Europe, in Germany, in Holland and Italy. All sorts of countries that are politically attracted to high social provision are finding it is necessary to trim back within what they can afford. And that is true here. That is why we have set in train with these fundamental expenditure reviews that we need to examine. So I think some of those are the things that we still need to do.

    There’s one other that I would touch upon. One of the other clear pieces of evidence from examining unemployment across Europe, is to look at the people who are unemployed. And predominantly the people who are unemployed for a long time are relatively unskilled males. They are the people who are unemployed for a long time. I’m not now talking just of the United Kingdom, I’m talking right the way across western Europe. And that argues to me firstly the on-cost argument. The same on-costs on someone of less economic value to a company, means they’re less likely to be employed. Straight economic facts. So one has to look at those on-costs.

    Secondly it argues that all across Europe we need to look more carefully at the nature and style of trading.

    Thirdly in terms of the United Kingdom it argues very powerfully to me that I very much want to expand both the service sector, where most of our future jobs will come, but also the manufacturing sector. Not because I think the manufacturing sector of itself will be a large net producer of additional jobs, I doubt that it will. But I think the suppliers of some of the secondary impact of the wider manufacturing sector will give us jobs. And a wider manufacturing sector of its own will be benevolent addition to the British economy. So those are some of the things I think will go to address the point you made.

    QUESTION (Rick Salinger, CNN):

    You mentioned Bosnia as a problem from hell, perhaps a case can be made for saying that Northern Ireland’s is the Prime Minister’s problem from hell. Are you discouraged by the lack of success in bringing about a political solution and an end to the terrorism there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I’d like to have had a complete solution of course. But I think it would be unwise to look at the extent to which progress has been made in the last two or three years. Let me illustrate that with some practical points rather than just the assertion.

    Who would have contemplated two or three years ago that we would have managed to get all the political parties talking in the way that they have around the table. It has never happened before. Large measures of agreement reached in strand 1 and strand 2 of the talks. Agreement, without an explosion in either side of the Ireland, that there should be regular bilateral summits between the Irish Government and the British Government. Huge improvement in cooperation on security matters between the Irish Government and the British Government. Huge increase in the relationship between the Garda and the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

    And perhaps above all, if you go to Northern Ireland and go out on the streets and talk to the people of Northern Ireland, there is a huge instinctive will for the politicians to talk and to try and reach an agreement.

    They don’t say anymore this or that political slogan when you talk to them. What they do say, though they may not put it quite in these terms, is that they don’t want another twenty three years like the last twenty three years. They do want us to push ahead for some progress and the reason for that is quite clear.

    If you walk around Belfast it’s a different city from ten years ago. The difficulties are highly publicised, magnified all the way round the world. The successes aren’t. There has been a huge amount of investment in Belfast and a great change in the city. One only has to go there to see it.

    But it is just a drop in the ocean and this is what explains the public attitude. Just a drop in the ocean to what could happen if the bloodshed and the terrorism stopped.

    You could triple tourism. I was in Northern Ireland over the weekend. The first Prime Minister to spend a weekend there I think for fifty years. I opened the tourist agency in Larne, a brand new agency. They could triple tourism in Northern Ireland but for the fact that all the rest of the world knows about Northern Ireland is when you get terrorist incidents. So they don’t go. They think it is far worse than it is.

    And secondly inward investment. Northern Ireland is a hugely attractive place to invest in. I went, the previous time I was there, to a great cotton factory where they got some investment from the United States. They’d merged and they were producing Fruit of the Loom t-shirts. Everybody there was hugely successful. Much more competitive than anywhere in the Pacific Basin.

    And the amount of inward investment that would flood into Northern Ireland because of the attraction of Northern Ireland as a place to live, and also its competitiveness is huge, provided it had a better terrorist overhang.

    Now the people of Northern Ireland know that. They know that there is a prosperity deficit in Northern Ireland because of terrorism. And I think they are getting heartily sick of it.

    So I think there is quite an agenda of reasons for positive hope. I don’t think it will be easy, I don’t think it will necessarily be quick but I think inexorably we are moving in the right direction in Northern Ireland and that is something one could not have said for much of the last quarter of a century.

    QUESTION (Linda Albany, ABC News):

    Recently someone quite close to the talks on Bosnia indicated that they were quite surprised by the lack of preparation which the Americans came overseas to talk about what it was they wanted done, and said something about this administration being worse than even the Carter administration [inaudible]. What was the reaction of Europeans, would you say, behind closed doors to some extent, to what the US’s position was and how they handled it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’m always rather suspicious of anonymous quotes, having spent a year living through them. So I tend not to react too well to anonymous quotes.

    I can only say on the occasions that I have spoken either to President Clinton or the Secretary of State, I found immensely well briefed about realities. Nobody is in any doubt that we have produced different prescriptions as to what is appropriate from time to time. But I think they’re very well briefed. I think they do understand the problems involved and I sometimes find it bizarre when I read afterwards what has allegedly happened at a meeting I attended. Either I wasn’t there at all or there’s been some misapprehension in the way it has subsequently been passed on for reporting. So I have no criticisms to make on that score.

    It’s a very difficult problem. The United States have to grapple with it in the same way that we do. In some areas we have reached different conclusions but I think the objectives we have in mind are the same objectives and I think that will become apparent again when we talk about it in weeks ahead.

    QUESTION (Maureen Johnson, Associated Press):

    Prime Minister, when you were saying fifteen months ago we wouldn’t have believed the achievements of your administration if you’d listed them, would you yourself have believed one of us if we had said where you’re poll ratings would be now and how candid or permanent do you think these are?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have someone whose word you trust implicitly with me. Namely Gus O’Donnell. And Gus will tell you, if I ask him to, won’t you Gus. “Yes Prime Minister” [GUS]. He used to write a very famous show as well of the same title.

    What I said to him the day after the last election. On the Friday after the election he sat upstairs in my flat. There were four of us there: Chris Patten, Gus O’Donnell, Sara Hogg and myself. And one of them said, ‘well, election’s over, we’ve won it’. And I said, and I hope Gus will recall the incident, that in a year I would be the most unpopular Prime Minister that this country had known for a very long time.

    I did not quite envisage how it would come about. I freely confess that. But I was well aware of the intrinsic difficulties that lay ahead and I had no doubt that it would lead to a considerable amount of difficulties.

    But I’m bound to say, asking me about poll ratings is not wildly productive. If I had believed poll ratings I wouldn’t have had any of these problems, because I wouldn’t have won the last election. None of them said that we would, I didn’t believe them then. I disregarded them then and I have no intention of letting them get in the way of what I’m doing now.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Exchange Rate’s only part of competitiveness. Don’t make too much just of the Exchange Rate. That’s short hand for a range of other things as well.

    If you look, for example, at the other components of competitiveness in the United Kingdom: unit costs, productivity growth. You’ll see all of them are now strikingly better than most of our European competitors and strikingly better than we’ve seen previously in this country. So I wouldn’t make too much simply of the Exchange Rate problem.

    There are a whole range of other things that are making our exports very competitive. And I am delighted about that and also delighted that we have quite a degree of spare capacity, with proved production in this country in order to continue to export.

    The problem that we will face, I think, will be a slightly different one. The problem that we are going to face over the next year is that so many of our principal markets are themselves in recession or are heading towards recession. So we are likely to get a larger share of our improved competitiveness. A larger share but perhaps of a smaller market. And if I had to worry about the trade deficit, I would worry about that aspect of the trade deficit rather than the one that you raised.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think that question is capable of more than one interpretation. I hope we will be able to reach a settlement that is satisfactory for each of the three parties.

    Even if that were true, the probability is, I state this is a probability not a certainty, but the probability is that there will need to be some international presence in the former Yugoslavia for some time to come. I don’t know what form that presence will take. I don’t know what form any guarantees that might be required would be. But I would be very surprised if there wasn’t firstly an humanitarian presence in Bosnia for some time.

    Secondly a presence aimed at the reconstruction of the former Yugoslavia, and very possibly what I might call the guardian presence, that’s small g, of troops under a UN guise to help in one form or another.

    So I think if any of the world’s big nations had ambitions that they may be able to wash their hands of the Yugoslavian/Bosnian problem in the near future, then I think that is very unlikely. I don’t myself foresee it. I hope we will get a settlement. I think that would be a great step forward.

    The other problems would be rather more agreeable to have. But even if that occurred and we did get a settlement and that settlement were satisfactory and it looked as though it was going to last, there would still be a need, I think, for a continuing involvement.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, for thirty five years I’ve been trying, to explain British cricket. Unsuccessfully of course. Now I have to explain whether there is actually a decline in British cricket in its appearance of British Cricket and County Cricket, a lot of my audiences are waiting expectantly for my answer.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have many responsibilities and I am prepared to take the blame for most of them which on balance is a jolly good thing. Let me try and respond to that question.

    As for explaining cricket it is quite simple. Two men go out to the middle of the field, they put in six pieces of wood, two men in white coats come out and it starts to rain. That is really all you need to know.

    I tried to explain to President Bush what a leg breaker was, several times, and he got it. Ah, he said, it’s a curved ball that doesn’t bounce.

    There is a serious point underlying your question. And I think it deserves a slightly more serious answer. County Cricket isn’t the force it was. School cricket, the lack of school cricket, is really I think where the roots of the difficulties cricketers have actually spring from.

    That is the negative side of the equation. The positive side of the equation is that the great County sides have recognised that and they are now organising on a scale we’ve never seen before in this country. Club Cricket and Youth Cricket actually organised by Lancashire, Surrey, Yorkshire and Middlesex. So they are seeking to get youngsters with some form of cricketing talent at a very young age and exposing them to a higher class of cricket.

    That will take some time to work its way through. But if you look at the Surrey team, which I mention only because by far the most important public appointment I hold is that of life vice-president of Surrey County Cricket. A large number of the present Surrey County side actually came through those youth arrangements.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the 1993 European Council in Copenhagen – 23 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement, made on 23rd June 1993, on the 1993 European Council which had been held in Copenhagen.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker. I will make a statement about the European Council in Copenhagen, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The principal issue before the Council was how to promote economic growth throughout the Community. Although Britain is now emerging from recession, a number of European countries are still seeing their economies shrink– five are expected to be in recession during this year. Unemployment has grown throughout the Community and now totals 18 million–in most countries it is still rising, and in some it is rising quite sharply. Against that background, the President of the Commission presented options for economic revival in the medium term. That document has been placed in the Library of the House, together with the conclusions of the Council.

    I largely agreed with the diagnosis set out by the President of the Commission, although not with all his proposed remedies. In the subsequent debate, I was encouraged by the wide recognition that the Community had to improve Europe’s overall competitive position and to address the trend of rising unemployment throughout all of the past 20 years.

    The Council agreed a number of practical measures to improve Europe’s economic prospects. We stressed the importance of low inflation, specifically in order to improve cost competitiveness and achieve sustainable growth; we reaffirmed the priority given at the Edinburgh Council in December to growth and investment in our public expenditure programmes; we decided to expand the temporary lending facility of the European Investment Bank from 5 billion to 8 billion ecu, with a particular emphasis on helping small and medium-sized companies; we agreed that it was vital to reduce fiscal deficits–without that, much of Europe will not be in a position to reduce its interest rates.

    The argument that the Community had to keep down costs in order to improve competitiveness and create new jobs was widely supported at the Council. It was felt that, unless that was achieved, we would find ourselves increasingly uncompetitive against, not only the Pacific countries, but also our primary competitors in the United States and Japan. It was also recognised that all Europe, without exception, had to face the problem of the rising costs of social provision, brought about by demographic and other changes. The European Commission has been invited to present a White Paper on a medium-term strategy for growth, competitiveness and employment for discussion at the European Council in December. Member states will be submitting proposals for the White Paper. I believe that that will enable the Community to build on the European Council’s new emphasis on competitiveness. Over the next six months, we shall press for reforms to increase flexibility in the labour markets and reduce unemployment. I hope that that will lead to a genuinely radical report at the December Council.

    Following earlier Council discussions of subsidiarity, the European Commission has now produced a first list of items on which it has decided not to propose legislation. I will place that list in the Library. At the next Council, the Commission will produce a further list, showing existing legislation that will be either repealed or amended. Subsidiarity was a controversial provision in the Maastricht treaty some time ago, but we now have strong support for our position from a number of member states. Subsidiarity is becoming a central element in the Community’s decision making.

    There was a substantial discussion of the Community’s external policy. I would draw attention to only four specific items. First was the importance of urgent progress in the Uruguay round. I am in no doubt that a general agreement on tariffs and trade will benefit all Community members without exception, but there is a long way to go in a short time if a satisfactory agreement is to be reached during this calendar year.

    Secondly, the Council was keen to see rapid progress in the enlargement negotiations with Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden. We set 1 January 1995 as the target date for their entry–earlier than previously expected. Their membership, in my judgment, will strengthen the Community.

    Thirdly, looking to the longer term, the Council agreed that the six associated countries of central and eastern Europe should be invited to join the Community in due course. It will, of course, take some time until they are ready. In the meantime, we will help them by increasing the Community’s political links and by opening our markets more rapidly to their goods. A package to that effect was agreed. Fourthly, the Council acknowledged the need to recognise Russia’s international status, and agreed to my proposal to offer summits between the Community and Russia twice a year.

    The deteriorating situation in Bosnia was discussed both by Foreign Ministers and by Heads of Government. Those discussions included the possibility of lifting the arms embargo. We agreed that the Community should encourage the efforts of Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg to promote a fair and viable settlement. This view was widely shared, and is reflected in the Council’s declaration on Bosnia-Herzegovina. I argued that lifting the arms embargo would jeopardise the humanitarian operation and provoke a bloodier and perhaps wider war, with perilous consequences. We agreed after discussion that it was better to seek a peaceful settlement acceptable to all sides. But, as the Council made clear, this cannot be a solution dictated by the Serbs and Croats and at the expense of the Muslims.

    The Council also agreed that the Community should support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to secure additional troops and funds to implement the safe areas resolution. The United Kingdom is, of course, as the House is well aware, already making a full contribution.

    This was a practical Council. It addressed directly the concerns of the peoples both east and west. It put in hand work on a new economic approach to make Europe more competitive and increase growth and employment. We will return to those matters at Brussels in December.

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Steve Doughty, Daily Mail):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (John Palmer, The Guardian):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION (Raymond Lloyd, The New Internationalist):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Graham Leach, BBC):

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION (Japanese Newspaper):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Peter Snow, BBC TV):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Peter Snow, BBC TV):

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC TV):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION (BBC Hungarian Service):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Michael White, The Guardian):

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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