Tag: European Union

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Party Women’s Conference – 4 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Party Women’s Conference, held in London on 4th June 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Madam Chairman, it is over 30 years since I joined the Conservative Party.

    I still recall why. Because it was the Party of the individual.

    The Party of the family. It offered choice. It spoke about how people could better what they had.

    How each of us could have more control over our own lives. Build up something more – then leave it to our children. They are simple enough objectives. They are what I believe in. What we all believe in.

    We stand for them as strongly today as we ever did. Individual liberty in everyday matters. That is fundamental to a free society. But that is not the only appeal of our Party.

    We help each generation lay the groundwork for the next. We keep our roots in the past, but we plan far into the future.

    And we have persistence. What we start out we complete – however tough the prospects may look.

    But, Madam Chairman, I don’t need to tell you that. Just remember the last Election. Win it? Many people were telling you that we hadn’t a cat in hell’s chance.

    It would have been easy to give up then – but we didn’t. We didn’t do it then. We haven’t done it since. And, Madam Chairman, we’re not going to do it now. I know it’s not been easy for Conservative supporters. It’s easy to wear the blue rosette the day after an Election win. But it’s not so easy to lift hopes and hearts when things have been difficult.

    But that’s what you all do. That’s what you did last March and April. That’s what you’ve been doing these last few months. And I know how much I owe you.

    Madam Chairman, these have been difficult times for Britain, but things are looking up here now. And don’t let’s forget – as some people too often do. Look around Europe.

    In France, in Germany, in Spain, in Italy – wherever you look – things are worse than they are in Britain. Higher interest rates. Higher inflation. And economies that are shrinking. In Britain the position is changing. We are now out of recession and returning to growth.

    Inflation has fallen: down from around 11 per cent to under 2 per cent.

    Interest rates: down from 15 per cent to 6 per cent.

    Exports: soaring.

    Manufacturing: beginning to re-employ again.

    Over 1000 new businesses are started every day.

    Unemployment has fallen over the last three months and job vacancies have risen.

    Britain is now back into growth. And that is the way to get Britons back into work. Of course we still face problems ahead. As a Nation we are borrowing too much. That is almost inevitable in a recession. The Government’s income falls – fewer people in work means less income tax. Less spending means less VAT and excise duties. Fewer home sales means less Stamp Duty.

    But it is not only that income falls in a recession expenditure increases. Social costs increase to protect the unemployed and others facing difficulty.This too, worsens the public finances. But I know of no Conservative Government that would abandon the vulnerable in a recession.

    Quite simply, that is not our way. So, income down, expenditure up. That is one of the main reasons we are borrowing too much.

    A good deal of our deficit will automatically disappear as we return to growth – the mirror image of what has happened over the last three years.

    In the Budget we set out a clear strategy for raising revenue over the next 3 years. The main task now is to keep a firm grip on public spending to help bring the books back towards balance.

    We must look across Government to see where savings can be made. As we do so we will not forget our Manifesto promises. We will not forget our commitment to the vulnerable – and especially the elderly. Nor will we forget our instincts and priorities as Conservatives.

    Over the next few months you can expect a whole crop of scare stories. Our opponents will be unscrupulous in their willingness to frighten anyone and everyone if they believe it will frighten them into their political camp.

    We have seen it all over the last two years.

    ‘The Government will privatise the Health Service.’ Remember that scare? Untrue.

    ‘The rural Post Office network will close.’ Untrue.

    ‘Pensioners won’t be able to collect their pensions from the Post Office.’ Untrue.

    Three wrongs that were not right. And there’ll be more.

    Be warned. Our opponents will scare and scare and scare again.

    What they will not do is address the reality that – in the interests of the country – we must put the finances in order.

    We have to take a good hard look at public spending – quite apart from the financial pressures of recession.

    Let me tell you why.

    More of our young people are going into further education. We want to encourage that – but it’s very expensive.

    More people are living longer. We want to provide them with the care they deserve – but it’s very expensive.

    Britain needs a modern industrial economy. So our young people need more and better training – but it’s very expensive.

    All are important. But we can’t pile cost upon cost. We have to pick our priorities. More spending somewhere means more savings somewhere else. I know it will be unpopular in the area where savings are found. But – if we are to do what is right for the country – we must do it.

    I believe the British public will understand this.

    They know you can’t spend what you don’t have.

    And all of us have to take that message – uncomfortable as it is – to every constituency in the land.

    Some areas of public expenditure will continue to grow – year by year. We must answer the question – how are we going to meet rising needs without ever higher taxation? I believe the answer lies in policies that will sustain the recovery – low taxes on larger profits and more incomes.

    Madam Chairman, I want our country to be economically powerful again. To build up its industrial and commercial strength. The economic conditions are in place. Now we need to shape policy so that it supports business and allows it to grow.

    Only growth will provide jobs, yield taxes, invade foreign markets, replace foreign imports and boost our prosperity.

    Madam Chairman, I believe the Government does have a role to help industry. It has a responsibility to shape the economy; to keep taxes as low as possible and to produce economic conditions that favour investment. But it can do more than that.

    It can curb unnecessary regulation. And we will do that.

    It can stop costs being loaded on British companies by unnecessary action in Brussels. And we will do that.

    It can help exporters to win in overseas markets with strong support and the full use of British political influence abroad. And we will do that.

    It can produce the reforms that help industry.

    The trade union reforms. The education reforms. The training reforms. And we will do that.

    The economic conditions are in place for growth. Slowly, but certainly, confidence is coming back.

    Confidence to encourage investment.

    Confidence to expand.

    Confidence in our economic prospects.

    That confidence will ripple through the economy – from the greatest companies to the village shop.

    And the sooner it does that, the better it will be for everyone.

    We are now at a turning point. The recession is slipping behind us. Steady growth lies in front of us. And if the OECD and European forecasters are correct, next year Britain will grow faster than any of the leading EC countries.

    They are saying it abroad. So let’s hear it at home. It is time to stop knocking Britain. It is time to talk Britain up – and talk Britons back into work. And it is also time to protect Britain from well-meaning but damaging legislation.

    At Maastricht I refused to accept the Social Chapter. Not because I want to damage workers’ rights. But because I don’t think that being priced out of a job and being made unemployed is much of a right. The Social Chapter loads costs on employers and will cost jobs for employees.

    Throughout Europe over 17 million people are unemployed.

    All Europe competes with the US, Japan, and the Pacific Basin. But if Europe piles costs on itself, it will not be able to compete – and unemployment will rise across the Community.

    Earlier this week, under the provisions of the Single European Act, our European partners were able to agree a directive by a qualified majority vote that tries to change British working practices. I believe their proposals are folly.

    In any event that should be a decision for this country. It should not be a decision made in Europe. So we will fight it politically. And we will take our case to court. Our partners have also proposed the establishment of works’ councils. Let me tell them now. They are wasting their time.

    They need unanimous agreement for that – and Britain will not give it. We have a veto on this issue. And we will use it. But let us not forget that Europe is changing.

    Today’s European agenda is not about federalism, still less about some fanciful “superstate”.

    It is about making Europe competitive; securing a GATT agreement; stimulating growth and jobs building up the single market.

    About decreasing regulation and increasing national decision- making.

    About bringing new members into the Community, and building up links with Eastern Europe.

    These are the realities of life in the Community today. They reflect our ideas. They are good for Europe. And, Madam Chairman, they are good for Britain.

    Madam Chairman, over the last few days I have had the opportunity of reading your paper on crime. It comes at a good moment. Three weeks ago – at the Scottish Conference at Edinburgh – we heard from a very brave woman who spoke about being the victim of a violent crime.

    It was a harrowing account delivered with great dignity. The chances of being a victim may – statistically – be remote. But fear of crime is not remote. It is all too real to too many people. People living on their own. Women. Pensioners. And people living isolated lives in our big city estates.

    That fear limits freedom blights lives and corrodes society.

    How many people here, when they get into the car, press the central locking with their elbow before they drive off?

    Quite a lot, I bet. Across the country millions do. I’ve seen my own family do it.

    How many women think twice before venturing out into their own town or city in the evening?

    We really shouldn’t have to give that a second thought. It cannot be right that people feel so insecure.

    Madam Chairman, we intend to respond to those fears. Of course, we will give the police and courts the powers and support they need to fight crime on our behalf. We are doing that. But that’s only half the equation. The police and the courts can’t do the job on their own.

    The fight against crime – if it is to be successful – must involve us all.

    Parliament can’t solve crime with legislation. Governments can’t solve it just with expenditure.

    Both have a part to play – but it is only a part.

    If we are to have a successful long-term crusade against crime we have to change the general attitude to crime.

    We must end the all too easy tolerance of petty crime – because it breeds an appetite for more serious crime.

    We need to encourage self-discipline. And we need the help of the public.

    Some months ago I said of crime: ‘We must understand a little less, condemn a little more.’

    Some people were outraged. But I wouldn’t change a word of that view.

    If we understand too much we condone.

    If we condone we encourage.

    If we encourage we will not bring down crime.

    In understanding crime you can, literally, kill with kindness.

    Our long-term battle against crime must start in the home.

    We need to teach our children the difference between right and wrong while they’re young. Children need rules. To be shown that life on the right side of the law offers so much more than life on the wrong side. Violence is not a routine part of life. And it should never be portrayed on our videos or television screens as if it were.

    We don’t want our children saturated by violence. We want them to grow up appalled by it.

    Madam Chairman, we will not shrink from taking any necessary steps to combat crime.

    In this session of Parliament we will be taking the action you asked for.

    We will be giving the courts the powers they need.

    Cracking down on arrogant criminals who ask for bail, get it and then commit crime all over again.

    We will be extending the maximum penalties for drunk and dangerous driving.

    And we will let courts take previous convictions into account when passing sentence.

    Madam Chairman, that is just the beginning of the changes to come.

    Next year Michael Howard will make the battle against crime the centre-piece of our legislation.

    We’ll be acting on criminal justice.

    And we’ll be acting to strengthen and to modernise the police.

    We will be developing new institutions for young offenders – so that they’re where they belong – off the streets.

    We will be tackling those so-called ravers, squatters and new age travellers, who treat other people’s property as if it were the municipal rubbish dump.

    And, yes, we will be clamping down more comprehensively than ever before on fraud in the social security system.

    If there are to be cuts in expenditure, let the first cut be fraud.

    We will also reform the police. We have the men and women we need – but all too often they are having to spend time sitting in offices filling in forms.

    We want them out of offices, catching those who have form. That’s what our new plans are about. That’s what we want.

    And isn’t that what the people of this country want too?

    Madam Chairman, the whole country will agree we need to tackle crime. But they won’t all agree about tackling some of the other problems in front of us.

    I know what many of our supporters are saying. ‘Why can’t they leave well alone? Why are they always changing things?’ I understand that. No one likes change for its own sake.

    That’s normal; that’s Conservative. It’s an everyday instinct.

    And it’s my instinct, too.

    But when I see something wrong then, yes, I do want to change it. To change it for the better – and change it for good.

    Continuity and change weave together into the living tradition of modern Conservatism.

    Continuity of institutions is the bedrock upon which we can make changes elsewhere.

    Above all, there is the continuity of the Monarchy.

    Forty years ago this week, the nation celebrated the coronation of our Queen. Millions lined the streets and millions watched on flickering black and white televisions. I know that I did.

    Britain is a constitutional monarchy. And I for one hope and believe it always will be.

    The Church, the State, Parliament – all help provide solid anchors for our way of life.

    So does our language – the richest in the world. So does our evolving way of life in town and village that provides a comforting mixture of the old, the familiar, and the new.

    These are lasting things, living things that evolve and do not change dramatically. And nor would we want them to. Yet, at the same time, we enforce change elsewhere.

    We promote it. We deliver it. But only where necessary.

    Not change for change’s sake.

    Madam Chairman, one area we do need change is education.

    I’ll tell you why. A third of those going on to training courses needed remedial help with English. Two in every five need basic help with numbers to get through their courses. One adult in six has problems with skills which can be tackled by a well-taught 9-year old.

    Yet, Madam Chairman, how can this be?

    How can this be when we are spending more public money per pupil than ever. Half as much again as we spent in 1979?

    Something is clearly wrong.

    Yet that is the reality in some classrooms.

    I don’t regard these bad results just as statistics. They tell us about children who don’t reach their potential.

    About opportunities lost.

    They tell us something too about the effect of lack of discipline.

    About the blind eye turned to truancy.

    Madam Chairman, that does mean change.

    To opt for the quiet life in education would be to accept the second-rate. Frankly, we’re not prepared to do that. For the worm is in the apple. And it’s time to face this problem square on.

    That does not mean we want a battle with teachers. We do not. We want to work with teachers.

    Few jobs carry greater responsibility than that of the teacher.

    The future of our country is shaped in our schools.

    The prospects for millions of lives are determined there.

    The overwhelming majority of teachers are dedicated and able – and we must help them.

    I am determined to see the high professional standing of teachers restored.

    That is why two years ago I gave teachers a Review Body on pay – to emphasise their professionalism and importance.

    I want teachers who are working day after day to help their pupils to know that the Government will support them.

    And I want them to know something else.

    Some of the tests are too bureaucratic. And I want them slimmed down.

    We are going to take some of the burden off their backs. It crept in – and we must remove it.

    There is strong support for a national curriculum in schools. We want to see greater emphasis on the basics. So, I believe, do parents.

    That’s why we must monitor every stage of a child’s progress at school. And that means tests. And that is why we are insisting on the publication, school by school, of exam results, testing scores, and truancy rates.

    Those who want to hide this information are quite wrong. Parents and public have the right to informed choice. They need to be able to judge how their schools are performing. Those performance tables are crucial – and they are here to stay. And in case there be any doubt, let me be crystal clear about some of the things I want to see.

    More attention to the basics of reading, writing and maths for our 5-7 year aids.

    Experienced people who are good with children coming into the profession.

    Children introduced to subject teaching and timetables at an earlier stage.

    And simple pencil and paper tests to find out what each pupil has learned – and what he has not.

    I want to see schools developing pride in the traditions and achievements of Britain – it is nonsense to have a history curriculum that is strong on the Aztecs but doesn’t mention Nelson or Wellington.

    I want to see truancy and absences cut back.

    Homework set and marked.

    Gifted children and those with learning difficulties stretched to their limits. And I want to see teacher training courses concentrating on subject knowledge, with experience of how to teach learnt where it can be learned best – in the schools. And, Madam Chairman, that will be the objective of teacher training reforms which we shall bring forward for next year’s programme for Parliament.

    People say there is too much jargon in education – so let me give you some of my own.

    Knowledge. Discipline. Tables.

    Sums. Dates. Shakespeare.

    British history.

    Standard English. Grammar.

    Spelling. Marks. Tests.

    And, Madam Chairman, good manners – good manners are important for children.

    But children learn by example.

    So good manners are important for headteachers as well.

    Madam Chairman, it won’t be easy.

    Our education reforms were never going to be plain sailing all the way.

    Our goals are clear.

    To put in place a high quality education system.

    To bring the best out of the skills of our teachers.

    To meet the needs of all children, whatever their abilities and wherever they live.

    To be on the side of pupils and parents.

    Nothing – and no-one – will deflect us from that task.

    Madam Chairman, I’ve spoken about the prospects for the economy. The need to control public expenditure. Tackle crime. Continue with our reforms on education.

    All of this falls within a classic Conservative agenda. Whatever we do we need to remember always that at the other end of our policies – are people.

    People with their own ambitions and their own hopes.

    They are not always grand ambitions.

    But we should always remember that a private triumph for a private man is as important to him as a public triumph for a public man.

    Our job is – wherever we can – to help everyone meet their ambitions – not stand in their way.

    But, Madam Chairman, one of the glories of our country is that people’s ambitions are not always for themselves. Often they are for others.

    At the beginning of the year I issued a call for more recognition of voluntary effort. We in government are looking actively at how we can promote and add value to the work that is done. And we have announced already that those who give of themselves for others will gain a more prominent place in our system of honours.

    We are a caring country. That is true of individuals – and it’s also true of industry. We should not forget the great part that British industry plays in voluntary support. There are those who talk glibly of the selfishness of capitalism.

    Frankly they don’t understand it.

    It is high time we heard more about the huge contribution of private enterprise to our national well-being.

    Not just in the goods it produces – or the jobs it creates.

    But in sponsorship, gifts, secondments, administrative help, and joint ventures with private voluntary groups.

    This private sector contribution grows year on year. Capital and charity hand in hand.

    Help worth over £200 million last year from just 216 companies in one survey.

    Giant contributions to health, education, sport and the arts.

    There are some who say news must reflect reality.

    Well, there’s some good news about Britain. Caring people. And caring capitalism.

    That is the reality – it would be nice to hear it in the news.

    Madam Chairman, Britain’s prospects for the future are looking up.

    Our economy is strengthening, our place in Europe secure.

    And as prosperity grows, so too will confidence and trust return.

    A country fashioned by the craft and skills of its people.

    One in which every person feels – heart and soul – that they belong.

    In whose prosperity all have their own personal share.

    People ask what we stand for. That, Madam Chairman – that is what we stand for.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Anglo-French Relations – 28 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Anglo-French relations, made during an interview held in Paris on Friday 28th May 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the UK and France were becoming closer].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Our relationship with Paris has been improving over some years and I am very pleased about that. It is very good now. I think the relationship between the United Kingdom and France is as good at the moment as I can remember for very many years and I am delighted at that and I wish to see the extent to which we can extend that. I know that is the Prime Minister’s view; it is also the President’s view and a matter we have discussed in the past, so I’m very pleased with the relationship. It is good and it is getting better.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it was easier with a French Conservative Prime Minister].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am very much at ease with Prime Minister Balladur. I was very much at ease with his predecessors as well. Pierre Beregovoy in particular was a friend of mine and so I was very much at ease with him.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked in what areas could the French and British work closer together].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think across a whole range of issues. We have discussed this morning areas where we might do work to examine the common position in the interests of the European Community as a whole. We are looking together for example at subsidiarity, what it means, how to develop it, where to apply it. Certainly, we have a joint interest as members of the Security Council – the Permanent Five – a whole range of issues there where I wish to work very closely with France. In terms of defence co-operation, France and the United Kingdom are the only two nuclear powers in Western Europe so we have a very real series of areas where we need to work very closely and that is what we are seeking to do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Anglo-French relationship would become as strong as the Anglo-German relationship].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are not seeking to change in any way the relationship between Paris and Bonn. It is very close, it is very good, it is historical and it is a good thing for the whole of Europe, but I am seeking to make sure that we have a very close relationship as well with Paris and also with Bonn. I think that is in the interest of the Community.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought the French would agree to sign the GATT agreement on agriculture].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there was great progress made amongst the agriculture ministers the other day and I congratulate all of them on the part they played in ensuring that happened. It looks to me like a very balanced agreement. It has to be confirmed in the next few days – I think early in June – and I very much hope that it is. I think that does help us move towards an agreement on the Uruguay Round as a whole though there are still many obstacles to overcome. Some of those obstacles of course don’t relate to the Community, don’t relate to agriculture. There are problems to be overcome for example with Japan and American problems as well but I think it is a step forward and I welcome that.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with M Balladur – 28 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the French Prime Minister, M Balladur, held in Paris on Friday 28th May 1993.


    M. BALLADUR:

    [Spoke in French]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prime Minister, I would simply wish to echo what you have said over the last few moments. We have had the opportunity over the last couple of hours of covering a very wide range of matters, bilateral matters, some quite detailed matters, some matters with a very long term concern indeed. We had the opportunity of looking in particular at the Copenhagen summit, not very far away now, and what we might seek to achieve there. We have looked at problems we wish to address together like subsidiarity. We discussed the desirability of a GATT settlement and some of the difficulties that have arisen there, and we looked of course at the problems there have been in Bosnia upon which our two governments have taken a very similar view from the beginning and in which of course both of our governments have committed quite substantial numbers of troops.

    That is by no means an inclusive list of the matters we discussed. A good part of our discussion were not matters requiring immediate decisions today, they were looking at problems and difficulties and opportunities that lie on the horizon both in the short and the long term and deciding how we might work jointly to seek to address those particular problems.

    I think the Prime Minister might agree with me in saying that the relationship and the extent of bilateral cooperation that exists at the moment between the United Kingdom and France is as good, if not better, as it has been for many years and I personally am delighted about that and very pleased to have had the opportunity of continuing our discussions this morning.

    QUESTION:

    Have your talks touched upon the question of the Exchange Rate Mechanism and whether by appointing a pro-European Chancellor that improves the chances of Britain re-entering the ERM?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did discuss the monetary affairs across Europe this morning, yes we did discuss that for a while. The government’s position on the Exchange Rate Mechanism was set out some time ago by Norman Lamont, that remains the position. The circumstances for Britain to re-enter the Exchange Rate Mechanism do not exist at the moment, they do not exist in terms of the relationship between British and German monetary policy and are unlikely to do so in the near future. That point was made quite clear by Norman Lamont, it has been made clear in the past by Ken Clarke and others, and it is the government’s collective position.

    QUESTION:

    If the policy has not changed, why has the Chancellor?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have a full press conference this afternoon and I will address domestic issues on that occasion, not now.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but about the social chapter]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I argued against the social chapter in the Maastricht Treaty not just on behalf of my country but on behalf of all the European countries. And I did so for reasons that are as relevant today, if not more relevant, than the reasons when I discussed them in Maastricht. Firstly I believe that some of the provisions of that chapter would destroy jobs and not create them, and we had then, as we have now, a very high level of unemployment across the whole of Europe; and secondly, because we cannot just look at the situation within Europe, Europe has to compete with the United States, with Japan and with the Pacific countries. If Europe has costs upon their employers and consequently therefore costs upon the products that they produce, they will render themselves; less competitive with Japan, the United States and the Pacific Basin, and that will cost further jobs in Europe. And it was upon those bases that I argued against the social chapter. We have differing views in the European Community about this and I respect the views of my European partners, but those are the views I held then and hold now.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but about the situation in the former Yugoslavia]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I read when I flew in yesterday evening the remarks by M. Juppe on the question of former Yugoslavia and I endorse exactly what he said, the position and concerns that we have expressed in the United Kingdom are very closely mirrored in France and the Prime Minister and I hold very similar views about them.

    QUESTION:

    On Bosnia have you, the French and the rest of the Western allies come to the conclusion that the Serbs have won the war and if you have not come to that conclusion what are you going to do to roll back their lands gained by force?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have made it clear right from the start that we do not accept Serbian gains by force, that was made clear by the Foreign Ministers again just a few days ago, we do not accept Serbian gains by force. But you have to address the question that M. Juppe put yesterday: are you prepared to put 200,000 troops into Bosnia in order to force them back by force of arms? And we know the answer to that, people are not prepared to do that, but we will maintain sanctions, we will maintain diplomatic pressure and we will not accept the land gained by force.

    M. BALLADUR:

    [Spoke in French]

    QUESTION:

    [In French]

    M. BALLADUR:

    [Spoke in French]

    QUESTION:

    Could you spell out what you hope to achieve at the Copenhagen summit and what your discussions this morning touched on about that matter?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can spell out some of those things, certainly. We will clearly want to discuss the particular economic problems that exist within the European Community, the problems of unemployment in particular at the Copenhagen summit, that would be our wish and I think it will be the wish of all our partners as well. We will want to look in some detail at how we carry forward the proposals on subsidiarity, work is proceeding on that at present, we would like to see that work carried forward. We will certainly wish to carry forward the discussions on enlargement of the Community and precisely what that may mean. Those are some of the detailed matters, by no means all, but they are some of the detailed matters we discussed this morning.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you what assurances you were able to give M. Balladur about the future economic policy of Britain, whether there would be any change and how it will affect the preparations for Copenhagen?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set out our economic policy about the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which I assume is what you have in mind, a few moments ago, it has not changed in those few moments, it is as it was and as it will remain.

    QUESTION:

    And has it changed since 24 hours ago?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I just said no.

    QUESTION:

    With a new Chancellor can the British expect accelerated interest rate cuts?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No British Prime Minister or Chancellor discusses interest rate policy and monetary policy on occasions like this and I have no intention of starting now. As ever, we will take the right judgments on the basis of what is necessary for the British economy in terms of the inflation prognosis, that is what we have done in the past under previous Chancellors, it is what we are doing now, it is what we will do in the future.

    M. BALLADUR:

    [In French]

    QUESTION:

    We have witnessed some gradual changes in the British position on the Uruguay Round in the last few weeks, could we have your comments on the style and substance of these moves?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I welcomed what was agreed the other day in the Agriculture meeting, we have to see what happens when we come to the further meeting at the beginning of June, but I have nothing further to say about the Uruguay Round as a whole, I hope we will be able to reach a satisfactory agreement on the Uruguay Round, I think that is in everyone’s interest and I think that is generally agreed.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Paris – 28 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Paris on Friday 28th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I just want to make a few introductory remarks and then I think we can really begin by taking the questions that concern you and I will attempt to answer them.

    I came here this morning at the invitation of the President of the Republic who very generously gave me lunch. President Mitterrand of course has been the longest serving French President for over a century and as such he is listened to with very great respect and I greatly enjoyed my meeting with him again today.

    I began the day earlier this morning with extensive talks with Prime Minister Balladur whom I had reacquainted when he came to dinner at Downing Street three weeks or so ago, we did of course know one another from the time we were both Finance Ministers some years ago.

    I also had the opportunity this morning of a meeting with President Giscard d’Estaing, who flew in from Strasbourg, and we were able to spend an hour or so together just before lunch.

    In each of those meetings we covered broadly similar, not identical, but broadly similar agendas. We looked at cooperation between Britain and France in international affairs, we looked at some of the main points on the European agenda and perhaps in particular the agenda that lies immediately in front of us on the Copenhagen summit, the Anglo-French bilateral that I will refer to in a few moments, and of course the European interest in the G7 summit at Tokyo later on in the summer.

    Let me make one or two general points. The first point I make is one that I make with a great degree of pleasure, and it is this. There is at the moment a great deal of common ground between people and politicians in France and the United Kingdom, and indeed in Germany and other member states, on the future of the European Community. I welcome that, I think there is an increasing concordat on many of the things we need to do in the Community and I think that is thoroughly welcome. The Community went through a period in the second half of the 1980s when there was very dramatic growth right the way across Europe. Subsequently the growth across Europe has fallen away and many of the difficulties that people have faced economically in countries right the way across the Community, international events that have swept right across the continent, have often been blamed, in many cases unfairly, on the specific activities of the Community itself.

    The second point I want to make is that I cannot myself recall a time when the relationship between the United Kingdom and France has been in better shape than it is at present. In many areas we have similar policies, we work together, we complement each other, we have joint interests. That is very welcome and I think we should maximise those joint interests in the interests of France and in the interests of the United Kingdom and both the President, the Prime Minister and I are determined that we will make the most of that.

    Of course between neighbours there are areas where we have a different shade of view, areas where there are disagreements. That I think is inevitable between neighbours and where that happens we get a great degree of publicity about it. But when one looks beyond those occasional matters, people perhaps take for granted the fact that millions of French and British visit one another each year, live and work in one another’s countries, build ships, cars, aeroplanes together as joint ventures. All that is happening and I welcome it very much indeed.

    I think they forget also that we work together, Britain and France, in a unique relationship as members simultaneously of the European Community, the Group of Seven and the United Nations Security Council. That is a very vivid illustration of the extent of common interest that exists between Britain and France and the extent to which we do work together and need to work together in the future. I think people even take for granted the fact that we are now joined by the Channel Tunnel – a massive joint engineering triumph.

    I have spent today discussing a range of matters with the President and the Prime Minister, they have not been discussing principally points of disagreement but points of agreement, points of how to develop policy further between us. we have had intensive discussion on how we can work together on issues of great importance to both of us, how to promote subsidiarity, that is to say the transfer of authority from the Community level back down to the nation state, how to promote enlargement of the Community to bring in the EFTAn states and in due course the central and Eastern European states, how to develop a closer relationship with Eastern Europe at the Copenhagen Council and how to cooperate even more closely in foreign policy, in defence and in security matters. So today has not been a day for short-term decisions but for long term planning about how to develop our joint interests together.

    Mainly because of the electoral calendar, France and Britain have not had a formal full dress British/French summit since June 1991. But I can tell you today that I have invited the President and the Prime Minister to come with a team of senior colleagues to a summit meeting in London in July. It will be held on 26 July when we will have a very extensive agenda to cover.

    I should also tell you that we have agreed this morning that the British Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, and M. Juppe will be meeting next week in order to take further the Washington agreement on Bosnia that was concluded just a few days ago.

    So those are broadly the areas we have been discussing this morning, I will not go into detail, you may well wish to ask me details and as far as I can I will respond to that, but those are the general areas we have been discussing this morning and I think it has been a very useful series of exchanges.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Associated Press):

    Today Alain Juppe has said that France has submitted a proposal to the United Nations calling for peace-keepers to be able to use force in Bosnia, what is your reaction to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well that is one of the things that Douglas Hurd will be discussing with Alain Juppe next week. The British and the French position on Bosnia has been astonishingly close right from the outset of this whole affair, our analysis of the problem has been close, our commitment to put troops on the ground has been close, our commitment and determination on sanctions and other matters has been close and our general reading of the problem has been close. We propose to liaise with Alain Juppe about this matter and I hope we will be able to reach a concordat, that meeting will take place next week.

    QUESTION:

    There are two known areas where there is a degree of disagreement between France and Britain, two known areas connected in part with the European Community, the first is the social aspect by which I mean Britain’s known refusal to accept the social facet of the building of Europe and the second is connected to the GATT negotiations, are the British and French positions getting closer together or are they still as far apart?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think understanding of the positions is certainly getting greater in both those instances. If I can say a word about the social aspect of Europe, the social structure and in particular the social charter which presumably is what you have in mind rather than the other social elements of the Community. If you mean the other social elements, the British contribution to them and the British acceptance to them is as great as any other country in Europe. But if you mean the social charter, it is certainly true that we do not favour the social charter, not as a position of ideology, I believe the social charter is mis-named.

    It has a nice friendly ring if you call it the social charter. If you were to call it a potential job destruction charter I do not suppose it would be as popular across Europe and yet that is what I believe it to be. We in Britain have a different social structure from some of our partners in Europe and clearly therefore we have a different perspective on the social charter.

    But let me put the point specifically about the social charter. The social charter will add to the employment costs of people in Europe. If it adds to the employment costs it must mean one thing above all, there will be less jobs in Europe. We have between 17 and 18 million European citizens unemployed. I just ask the question: is it sensible when you have 17 – 18 million citizens unemployed, to add to the social costs of employment? I think you will just add to the number of people who are unemployed. That is the first point and the first reason that Britain opposes the social charter.

    The second reason is a European reason as well. Europe as a whole, all of it, faces much greater competition these days with Japan, with the United States, with the countries of the Pacific Basin. In a shrinking world for trade purposes we have to compete against those countries. If we, right the way across Europe, add to the social costs of employment and production we will diminish our capacity to win in those markets of the world, we will pile social costs on our employers and we will lose their markets to the Japanese, to the Americans and to the Pacific Basic countries.

    And I ask again: is that a sensible thing to do with 17 – 18 million Europeans unemployed? I have to tell you bluntly that I do not think it is sensible and it was for that reason that I argued so strongly at the Maastricht Council for Europe as a whole not to adopt the social charter, I do not want to see Europe as a whole put itself at a disadvantage to the rest of the world and I believe that is what it is doing and I believe you see that in unemployment right the way across Europe. It is emphatically not a question of saying let us not give new rights to workers. It emphatically is a question of saying let us get more workers back into jobs that they can stay in because the European industries can compete. That is why I argued against the social charter in Maastricht, why I would not accept it in Maastricht and why I still say for Britain and for Europe it is wrong, it is a disadvantage, the time for it is not yet right.

    On GATT, I very much want to see an agreement on the Uruguay Round, it has to be a fair agreement, I understand the difficulties that France faces. The GATT agreement extends across the whole range of industry and commerce, agriculture where I understand the difficulties in France, but there are many other industrial and other areas where a GATT agreement is very much in favour of Western Europe, very much in favour of jobs in Western Europe, prosperity in Western Europe, growth in Western Europe. And we have to find a way through this GATT tangle to reach a satisfactory settlement I believe within the terms of this year.

    If I may offer you a second reason for pushing ahead for a GATT agreement it would be this. What is one of the characteristics of Britain and France? One of the characteristics of both our countries is that we are very generous with overseas aid to countries with whom we have had a long-standing relationship. We are prepared to use a great deal of money from our own taxpayers’ revenue in order to assist those countries with direct aid.

    What on earth, what on earth is the purpose of giving them aid with one hand and not agreeing a GATT agreement that opens our markets to their products with the other? It is counter-productive. We may salve our consciences by giving them aid and we leave them in a position where they are a perpetual recipient of aid whilst denying them the opportunity of coming into our markets and make their prosperity, on their terms, for their future.

    Unusual for politicians to talk about morality maybe these days but I do not believe that is a moral policy and I think we should seek a GATT agreement for that reason. There are difficulties still in reaching a GATT agreement, they are not just French difficulties, I know France has difficulties with the Blair House Agreement, other countries have difficulties as well, the Japanese have difficulties, the Americans have difficulties with different aspects of the deal. I simply say that we need to continue to talk. Year after year we have gone to the G7 or some other great conference of Heads of Government and collectively agreed that we were going to have a Uruguay Agreement by the end of the year and year after year it has failed. I just think it is time that we actually reached a conclusion. It will to a greater or lesser extent be uncomfortable for all of us, including my country, but when you look at the recessionary situation around the world, particularly in Western Europe, and one looks at the difficulties that need to be faced, I think we all have to enter those talks with the determination of making them succeed. And in saying that I do not for a second under-estimate the difficulties that face France, I understand them, I just say collectively we must look and see how those can be solved across agriculture and elsewhere.

    QUESTION (David Buchan, Financial Times):

    Just two questions, one to follow up on GATT. Prime Minister Balladur said that you had agreed that your officials should put their heads together to try and advance agreement on GATT. Was that his initiative and what concretely would that mean? Would it be mainly focused on the agricultural side where he complimented Mr. Gummer’s help?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It followed on from the co-operation at the Agriculture Council that led to the agreement – which I hope will soon be clear is genuinely an agreement on oil seeds – just the other day. There was a great deal of Anglo-French co-operation. It advanced a cause that seemed lost.

    Maybe we can extend that co-operation in other ways. There is, as I indicated at the outset, a good deal more Anglo-French bilateral work on a range of subjects than most people perhaps realise and what we want to do is to look at the component parts of GATT. You can’t agree GATT by talking in generalities; you have to get down to the specifics. This is a “nuts and bolts” agreement. Everyone, to a greater or lesser extent, is hurt by the GATT agreement in one form or another. We need to look at those sore points and see whether we can find a way round them and I have great admiration for the diplomatic and political skills of the French and I believe we have quite a lot to offer in that respect as well so all we have agreed over our meeting this morning – and it followed on from the agriculture meeting – is that we will look together at these problems and see if we can identify a way ahead. we are not seeking a bilateral fix. Let me make that clear. We are pooling our resources to see how we can advance the general trend towards a satisfactory agreement.

    QUESTION (David Buchan, Financial Times):

    A quick follow-up: Prime Minister, you talked about this being a day for long-term planning. If this Anglo-French rapprochement were to continue until 1996, which is perhaps rather an ambitious hope, would you hope that in that year when there is supposed to be another intergovernmental conference in the Community, that this would help shape the agenda for that conference?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know why you think 1996 is an ambition. Unfortunately it is the disagreements that are magnified and the agreements that are not magnified but we have actually been working together for generations. I know British and French attitudes are perhaps marked by William the Conquerer coming over to Britain with a certain degree of malice aforethought and Henry II coming to France to conquer half the country and marry the rest but that was, frankly, rather a long time ago and we have been working together across a whole range of issues.

    The rapprochement will go on. We have a mutuality of interests. That is real politics apart from the fact that it is something we would both wish to do. What that doesn’t mean is that we are going to agree on every subject – of course it doesn’t. There are even disagreements sometimes within individual countries as we have all seen. Of course there will be disagreements but the determination to look where we can at areas of common interest and see a way ahead I think will continue up to and way beyond 1996 and of course we will be discussing with our friends in Paris and also other friends in the Community what the agenda should be for the next intergovernmental conference. We are working on that subject now and I believe everybody else will be too.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, it seems in fact that you have now a new relationship between Paris and London and mainly on the question of Europe and the shape of Europe. Could you give us some details of that? M. Balladur this morning said that the two administrations will work closely now.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You are wrong in thinking it is just European matters, it isn’t.

    There is a good degree of co-operation in international affairs, Bosnia for example, Russia for example; all the matters that go through the Security Council at the United Nations, the subject of increasing bilateral discussions between the United Kingdom and France. There is a very close defence relationship; we have worked together on a variety of defence projects; that remains the case; it will remain the case in the future. Britain and France are the only two nuclear powers in Western Europe. There is a good deal of collective work that we have done on that so there is a whole range of issues. The Channel Tunnel is a very practical expression of that.

    It isn’t just the development of the Community. Both France and Britain must work to a greater or lesser extent with all our Community partners on that but it is across a wide range of issues that we are seeking to develop perhaps further than it has gone before the relationship that exists between France and Britain.

    Of course it involves European matters. We are both keen on making sure we get the right extension of the European Community, that we have the right arrangements when the new countries come into the European Community, that we look collectively at what actually happens after the 1996 meeting that we will have to refresh Europe and move forward. Of course we are looking together at all those things. We both have a very direct interest in it.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, one of the fruits of Anglo-French co-operation has been this Washington agreement. This agreement has been rather received by the other European partners on two levels: one is that it is a way of promoting a kind of apartheid or bantostar in Bosnia; the second is that they didn’t like hearing about it on the radio without any prior consultation. We are talking about common foreign and defence policy. How do you react to this criticism to the Washington agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think a good deal of the criticism of the Washington agreement has been very ill-informed, to be blunt. The Washington agreement is an action plan. The Washington agreement is not a settlement that freezes the Serb gains and says they can keep them. It emphatically is not that. It is an action plan about how in practical terms we can develop policy. The objective of making sure that sanctions continue and that other policies continue until such time as the Serbs disgorge their gains continues so there is no change in that as Douglas Hurd has made clear, as M. Juppe has made clear. What it is is a practical way in which to proceed.

    As to the concerns of other European members, what they agreed there was entirely in line with previous discussions there had been amongst the Twelve so I think the criticism that we have heard from that quarter is more based on inaccurate reports than accurate substance. I reiterate the point: emphatically not a settlement; emphatically not rewarding the Serbs for the present position; emphatically making it clear that this is the way that it is practicable to proceed in the short-term and that in the long-term we do not expect and do not wish the Serbs to keep their ill-gotten gains and that diplomatic and political pressure, sanctions pressure, is expected to continue and will have the full support of the British and French perhaps for a very long time ahead.

    QUESTION (Nelson Grays, Reuters):

    Could you tell us exactly how France and Britain could strengthen their relations in the military realm and especially as regards nuclear?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nuclear is more delicate for me to discuss here and we will need to have a great deal of discussion about that but we have had a good deal of military co-operation on the construction of military equipment and other matters in the past.

    As military demands change – and they are changing at the moment in the 1990s – we may increasingly have to look across the Western European Union, across NATO, making sure that nations do most what they do best and that does mean we have a particular responsibility to look between Britain and France in the interests of Western Europe in particular at their contribution to NATO, at the right degree of co-operation between them. Joint exercises are the sort of thing we have done for a long time; the possibility of constructing joint frigates. These are all matters of co-operation that would be both in our military interest and very probably, subject to examination, in our financial interest as well and those are the sort of things we will wish increasingly to examine.

    QUESTION:

    You said that you had met with Prime Minister Balladur and indeed then with President Francois Mitterrand and I would like to know your views of this peculiarly French phenomenon known as “cohabitation”.

    Secondly, regarding Franco-British economic co-operation, you know that the Channel Tunnel is of signal importance to France and to the French. I would like to know what Britain’s intentions are in that connection and in particular mention has been made of the possibility of France even investing in British railway networks.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As far as cohabitation is concerned, I don’t find that a strange prospect at all. The Conservative Party have been cohabitating on the Maastricht Treaty for the last few months so I see no particular difficulty in the cohabitation you have had in France.

    On the question of the tunnel and the development of railway networks, we have decided that we will develop the railway network. I know President Mitterrand indicated delicately and with great charm that our trains might go a little more slowly perhaps than his. I would simply say we have some very lovely country to look at while they go slowly and I look forward to the development of those trains between now and the turn of the century and I am very delighted the decision has been made that we will proceed with the development.

    I wasn’t aware of the suggestion of French investment in those railways but perhaps that is a suggestion that has been made this side of the Channel rather than the other side.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant):

    You said this morning that there will be no change in the government’s approach both to the ERM and to possible future cuts in interest rates but if there has been no change in economic policy and if that is not your intention, why did you change the Chancellor and what did you make of the fact that he did not send you a traditional resignation letter?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The position on economic policy generally has been set out quite clearly and that doesn’t change with a change of personnel. It is no more likely to do that than the government’s desire for a home-owning democracy which has been there for generations will have changed with successive Environment or Housing Ministers; of course it doesn’t change.

    The policy carried out by the Chancellor is the government’s policy, has been and remains the government’s policy. It has been set out and articulated by Chancellors – very well articulated by Norman Lamont – and endorsed before he became Chancellor by Kenneth Clarke. That continues.

    It is always necessary from time to time to refresh a government, to change it round, to put the right people in the right jobs, to push forward the agenda for the next few years, to make sure that is done as effectively as possible and that is the purpose of any reshuffle not least this one.

    Secondly, as to why particularly now: we are about to begin discussions that move towards the first unified budget, a very dramatic change in British budgetary procedures, and it is necessary to have a new Chancellor in place to see that right the way through the preparation and presentation in November of the first unified budget. It takes a lot of work, it takes a lot of decision and it seemed therefore the right time to do it before those discussions actually commence.

    The third reason of course is that I have in my Party a lot of talented people who have not yet served in government, who have a great deal to offer my country, who deserve the chance actually to serve in government. I wanted to bring those into the government as well as giving a lot of Ministers outside the Cabinet predominantly, but some inside the Cabinet, the chance to widen their experience and look at other portfolios. I think it is in the general interest to make sure that they do that, that they have the widest possible experience because I think that helps in conducting policy in the particular Department in which they have responsibility.

    Those essentially are the reasons for the reshuffle.

    Regarding the letter, I think that is a matter for Norman but I don’t think it can be very surprising, can it? I know Norman very well. He is a good friend of mine, he has been a good friend of mine for a very long time. We have worked closely together, we have shared the same policies, we have shared the same hopes, we have shared the same dreams about getting inflation down. He has taken a great deal of criticism as Chancellor – as any Chancellor of the Exchequer would have had to do over the last two years. He has taken very bravely with a great degree of courage a great degree of criticism. The fact that it has been necessary to make a change I understand must be very hurtful to him. Even politicians are human. I quite understand the fact that he wants a little bit of peace and quiet at the moment and I hope he’ll get it.

    QUESTION:

    Could I just ask whether you have a feeling of relief now that you have finally got what must have been a reluctant reshuffle out of the way and will your new Chancellor now have the option of considering possible changes in Norman Lamont’s last budget and specifically the VAT on home heat fuel?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t anticipate the present Chancellor changing what was in the budget that was approved by the Cabinet of which he was a member. I don’t anticipate changes in that regard, no.

    With regard to the sense of relief, tomorrow is always more important than yesterday. There are difficult decisions, difficult things to be done every day. There have been in the past. I have no doubt there will be other difficult decisions next week, next month and the month after – that is the business of government.

    QUESTION (Libby Viner, ITN):

    I would just like to ask the Prime Minister in what way you think Norman Lamont’s departure will restore credibility to your government if in fact he was following exactly the same policies that the government as a whole wanted to follow including yourself?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is necessary sometimes to refresh the look of the government, to have a fresh face to look at things, to move the agenda forward. If one didn’t do that, one would never make any changes in government and I don’t think that is a credible position so have nothing more to say about that.

    QUESTION (Libby Viner, ITN):

    Do you think it was unfortunate, though, that the world heard of it from Mr. Lamont’s mother?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is the reality, not the form in which they heard of it, that really matters, isn’t it?

    QUESTION (Philip Johnstone, Daily Telegraph):

    Beyond being a fresh face, what other qualities does Kenneth Clarke bring to the Treasury that the previous Chancellor lacked?

    Secondly, you say you wanted to refresh the government but by my reckoning you only brought four new Ministers into the government – two others have been Ministers before. Are you anticipating further changes in July at middle-ranking level as well?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I am not; no, of course I am not. I brought back some people who had talent who served in the government before, who lost their seats in Parliament and have now come back. They are still men who have a lot to offer the government and I was delighted to be able to bring them back. I think they will make a great contribution. I was able to bring in at the junior ranks of government and promote from one rank to another rank a number of people with very distinct potential for the future but refreshing the government is more than just bringing new people into the government. It is giving people in government who worked in a particular portfolio the opportunity to go and exercise their talents on another portfolio with the special advantage of the experience they have gained in their first Department. There is nothing fresh or novel about that. That is the way governments have been operating for as far back as we can trace and it is the right way in order to develop political policy and that is what I did in the reshuffle.

    QUESTION (Judith Dawson, Sky News):

    I didn’t want to disappoint you by not speaking about the polls and the polls aren’t looking frightfully good for either yourself as Prime Minister or for the government. Do you really believe that what you did yesterday will do the trick?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The two things are not related and if I may say, Judith, I seem to remember you saying the polls didn’t look very bright for me four days before the last general election.

    QUESTION (Judith Dawson, Sky News):

    Neither did they! [Laughter]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Remind me of the result! [Laughter]

    QUESTION (Jane Martenson, South Wales Echo):

    Prime Minister, what good will the appointment of John Redwood do for Wales and does his appointment mean a shift in policy for the region?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it doesn’t. In John Redwood, what I have done is given Wales an extremely talented politician who I believe will fight very hard for Wales. I think the important thing in any Secretary of State’s position is to find someone who has real ability in order to carry out that particular job. John has a wide range of experience across government already. I believe he will bring that experience whole-heartedly to the interests of the people of Wales and I think he will do an outstanding job.

    The first priority, frankly, in choosing people for any Cabinet is to choose people of very great ability. John Redwood in my judgement has very great ability and I think he will be of immense service to the people of Wales.

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Just a very simple question.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If only I had known! [Laughter]

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Do any of your Cabinet speak French?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes.

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Any of these new people? Does the new Chancellor speak French?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure about the new Chancellor speaking French. I do know that Mrs. Shephard, for example, is as bilingual – and maybe even trilingual – as anyone else in this room.

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    It is a curious thing that after so long in Europe that we have to have an interpreter for the Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Do you speak French?

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Of course I do!

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Excellent! Congratulations! [Laughter]

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Maastricht Treaty (III) – 19 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Maastricht Treaty, made during an interview held on 19th May 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the Maastricht Treaty would progress quickly following the Danish referendum result].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am certainly pleased the Danes have cleared that uncertainty up, it has been a very debilitating, very difficult period both in Denmark, right across the Community, and certainly in the United Kingdom as well. We have the third reading of the bill in the Commons on Thursday, I hope and expect it will be passed then. The bill will then move to the House of Lords and thereafter we will be able to have Royal Assent and ratify the bill.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he could get the bill through Parliament given the divisions in the Conservative Party and whether he would agree to the social chapter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a very decisive issue, Europe, it has been a very divisive issue in this country ever since we first joined it, and that remains the case. To take the particular points you raised, the social chapter firstly. I was speaking last night to a large number of employers at the CBI, they are absolutely clear that without the social chapter we are in a much better position. People think the social chapter offers all sorts of social benefits. I think it really more aptly ought to be called an employment destructive chapter, and that is emphatically not what we want in the United Kingdom, I want to put people back to work, not raise impediments to them getting work, and I believe that is what the social chapter would do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Edward Heath supporting the social chapter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ted is a very enthusiastic supporter of European development, I do not believe the social chapter is in our interests, I do believe it is very much in the British interest, in the British national interest, our own cold, hard self-interest to be right at the centre of the European Community. And I do not just say that for idealistic reasons. The European Community is where our exports go to, it is where most of our jobs over the last 10 years effectively were created from, because of our growth in trade where was a huge growth of small businesses and firms. We need that growth in trade, we need those jobs. I know of no-one, no-one, who has a practical alternative to Britain being at the centre of Europe using her influence. There are only three alternatives really: leave the European Community, hardly anyone is proposing that; stay in it without influence and be dragged along by the French and Germans, that is not attractive; or get in the middle of the Community, form alliances with our partners, different alliances on different issues, and try and wield real British influence in the European Community, and that is where I stand.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there would be increasing pressure on Britain to rejoin the ERM and join the social chapter and whether he would fight or give in].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think it is quite as straightforward as that either way. For every member of the Community, throughout the lifetime of the Community, there have been pressures. When you have 12 nations, soon to be 16, working together always there are going to be pressures and difficulties. In order to win your way in the Community you need alliances, you need to be taken seriously, you certainly do not want to be sidelined with the rest of the Community ganging up on you, as has happened so often to this country in the past.

    What we are seeing at the moment is a fairly dramatic move towards the sort of European Community that we in Britain have always wanted and feel comfortable with, a wider Community, because of the agreements at Edinburgh the EFTAN nations will soon be joining. They will firstly be net contributors to the budget, which will save us money, and secondly they will be free traders. We have different governments across Europe, more inclined to the British point of view. We are at the moment in a better position than we have been, I believe, at any stage in our membership to start influencing the Community to go in the direction that we the British would like to see it moving.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Maastricht Treaty (II) – 19 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Maastricht Treaty, made during an interview held on 19th May 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the divisions in the Conservative Party over Europe].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a very serious difference of view in the Conservative Party over Europe. There is absolutely no doubt about that, but I understand why that should be. This is a gut issue for the Tory Party; it runs very deep amongst people; they take a view very sharply one side or very sharply the other. They are operating from conviction. I can’t stop people operating from conviction in politics nor indeed would I wish to do so, but I think we have to proceed with the Bill. When we have concluded it, there is life after Maastricht, we will return to the other issues.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he could do about backbenchers who knew they wouldn’t be promoted so may as well rebel].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We’ve had rebellions before and I dare say from time to time we’ll have rebellions again, but one thing I’ve learned even in the two-and-a-half years I’ve been Prime Minister is that the people who are rebelling against a particular policy one week may well be your strongest supporter on another issue a week or so later. I think people are clearly distressed. I would much rather we hadn’t had this great disagreement in the Conservative Party but we have a disagreement of people with convictions that differ but we will get through that. We will conclude the Bill and then we will turn on to other issues where those disagreements won’t arise.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Britain would rejoin the ERM].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that is imminent, no, for reasons we have set out in the past. I think we would need the economies to be much closer together than they are at the moment. Some of the major economies in Europe are at present going in different directions. That is not a Clementine to rejoin the Exchange Rate Mechanism so I don’t think that is imminent. It will be some while before we consider it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked that if the ERM was a pre-cursor to a single currency, whether it would be necessary for Britain to join again].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, well you say that of course when you are referring to the movement towards Economic and Monetary Union, but I think the changes that we have seen in European economies over the last two years rather bear out the reservations that I expressed at Maastricht, before Maastricht and subsequent to Maastricht. In order for Economic and Monetary Union, a single currency, to work you would need convergence of the European economies; they would need to come together. I know of no-one who thinks they have come together in recent years, quite the reverse in fact; they have moved further apart. Although the time-scale may lay on the table for Economic and Monetary Union, I very much doubt that it is realistic.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Maastricht Treaty (I) – 19 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Maastricht Treaty, made during an interview held on 19th May 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Danish referendum result now meant that the Maastricht Treaty could be finalised].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I’m delighted the Danes have got an affirmative answer in their referendum but we still have to complete our parliamentary process. I don’t take that for granted. We have a third reading in the Commons, I think that will be quite satisfactory. We then have to put the bill through the House of Lords, I hope it’s back on track but no-one ever takes Parliament for granted.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the European Union would slow down its pace now].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I’ve been saying for a long time, indeed I said when we had the original Maastricht negotiations, that I thought the idea of the speed that they wanted to move towards economic and monetary union was just unrealistic. I didn’t like the principle, I thought it was unrealistic then, I believe events have proved that, it is now unrealistic.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Chancellor Kohl wanting to move towards European integration whilst he wanted a slower rate of change].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, that is my view, it’s not a new view, it’s a view I’ve expressed right from the moment of the Maastricht negotiations. Even if one assumed that a single currency was right for Europe, and I have never made that assumption, but even if that assumption were true it is not the case that the European economies have converged in the last few years making that possible. If anything they have diverged and the prospects of moving rapidly towards European monetary union seem to me to have drifted away very substantially.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if some countries would achieve a single currency by the end of the decade without the UK].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is unlikely, I think it’s unlikely. You can’t categorically rule it out but I do believe it’s unlikely because it could the nature of the Community and I don’t think that would be in their interests or anyone elses.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Britain would rejoin the ERM].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s not an immediate prospect.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was now permanent division in the Conservative Party over Europe].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t believe that is the case. There are a minority in our party, a significant number of colleagues, who feel passionately about European policy. That’s always been the case. Maastricht has heightened that passion quite noticeably over the last two years, I respect their convictions even though I don’t agree with them, but the majority of my party equally have strong convictions that are different to theirs. I believe, on the whole range of different matters, the need to bring down public expenditure, the need to ensure that manufacturing recovers, that industry recovers, the need to devolve choice from government and local governments down to the individual. On all these issues and a range of others the Conservative Party are united and they will remain united on those issues.

  • PMQT – 18 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.

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

    Mrs. Gorman : Has my right hon. Friend, in his busy schedule, had time to see a report of the National Consumer Council about international trade, which states that the dice are loaded against the consumer by the European Commission trade barriers and regulations which are costing billions of pounds extra every year, including £230 on a car, or £750 if it is imported into the Community, more than £1.2 billion extra on electronic goods and £17 per week on my grocery bill every time I push my trolley around Tesco? [Interruption.] Yes, and Norma. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House and, more important, consumers outside the House that he will stamp on that tremendous waste and tell the European Community to put its house in order? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The Prime Minister.

    Mrs. Gorman : I have not finished yet.

    Madam Speaker : As far as I am concerned, the hon. Lady has finished.

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend that reducing trade barriers does lead to lower prices and economic growth. That is why, above all, we want to get the negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade completed–to bring down tariffs and barriers in order to increase trade to the benefit of both the industrialised and the non- industrialised world. As to the European Community, to which my hon. Friend made passing mention, the single market should remove trade barriers within the Community. I very much hope that it will live up to its expectations. It was a British initiative, negotiated by a British Prime Minister and concluded by a British Prime Minister.

    Mr. John Smith : May I, on behalf of the Opposition, express our whole-hearted sympathy to the parents and families of the victims of Beverly Allitt? Does the Prime Minister appreciate the full extent of the anger and apprehension among parents throughout the nation at the fact that it was possible in one of our hospitals for a nurse with a known psychiatric disorder to destroy the lives of children in her care? In view of the appalling negligence which has obviously occurred, why have the Government refused to have a full public inquiry, with the powers to require the evidence of witnesses to be given on oath and to compel the disclosure of all documents?

    The Prime Minister : First, may I say that I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s sympathy for the parents. I know that that view is echoed across the House. The main thing about this inquiry–and this, too, will be generally shared–is to have one that will be most likely to get at the truth and to ensure that, in the future, there is no likelihood of a repetition. We take the view that the inquiry to be conducted by Sir Cecil Clothier is likely to be the most effective. Sir Cecil has taken the view– this is an important matter for the House to consider–and said this afternoon : “In my view, people will be more willing to speak frankly to my inquiry than to a public inquiry.”

    I share that view and I believe that, on that basis, it is right to proceed with the inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Cecil.

    Mr. Smith : No one doubts the competence or integrity of Sir Cecil Clothier, but how can he know whether people will be willing to give evidence? Surely, in the public interest, we should have an inquiry with the fullest powers. Does the Prime Minister not take into account the fact that the parents of the children concerned and the majority of the nursing staff want a full public inquiry so that nothing can be concealed? What is wrong with such a reasonable request?

    The Prime Minister : Sir Cecil has agreed to see the parents of the children, and that is welcome– [Interruption.] If Sir Cecil wishes to have further powers, he will come back and seek them from the Government, and we will provide them. I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Sir Cecil, as a former Parliamentary Commissioner for Health, not only commands the confidence of the House but has a great deal of experience in this area. I am happy to accept his judgment on what is the most appropriate way to carry out the inquiry that he is set to chair.

    I must also tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman–because I know that he will regard this as important, too–that there has already been a lengthy public trial which has brought many of the key facts to light. There has been an independent inquiry into the quality of management. In addition, Sir Cecil is now heading an independent inquiry into events at the hospital. If he needs further powers, he will come and ask us for them.

    Mr. Smith : Should not the nature of the powers be a matter for the Government’s responsibility, not a matter for Sir Cecil Clothier? Was not the trial concerned with quite different issues than what is concerned here– [Interruption.] –and is it not inappropriate

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Smith : Is it not inappropriate– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. Smith : Is it not inappropriate for the inquiry to be set up and to be asked to report to the very regional health authority whose own actions may be a subject of the inquiry? Is it not totally unsatisfactory, as a solicitor for the parents has pointed out, that the Secretary of State for Health has apparently given more weight to the wishes of the health authority than to those of the parents of the children? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that, on reflection, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might be ashamed of some of the things he just said. We want a rigorous and swift inquiry. We want an inquiry that will deal with the most important aspect of all, which is one that gets at the truth, not one that just raises party political points. My right hon. Friend has established such an inquiry– [Interruption.] –and she has appointed to head it someone with unique experience of the nature of the events. That man who is heading the inquiry has himself said that he believes that the people attending it will be more willing to speak freely to his inquiry than to a public inquiry. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not accept that advice.

     

    Q2. Mr. Hendry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Hendry : In between the cheap jibes of Opposition Members, has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see the report into the future of local government in Derbyshire published yesterday? Is he aware of the massive local opposition to the proposal that the whole county should be divided into two vast unitary authorities? Does he share the view of Conservative Members that local government should be as close as possible to the people it represents and that there is not, and never could be, any shared sense of community between my constituents and those in Chesterfield or, dare I say it, Bolsover?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend that, as far as possible, the structure of local government should reflect local tradition and a local sense of community. That is, of course, one of the main points of the present inquiry. With regard to the Derbyshire inquiry, as my hon. Friend says, the Local Government Commission preference is for two unitary authorities. However, I understand that it has also put forward alternative solutions. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to make his views clear to the commission.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government’s policy of encouraging the reduction in the payment of benefits across post office counters will, it is calculated, result in the closure of up to 5,000 local rural post offices? Will the Prime Minister tell the House that he is now prepared to reconsider that foolish policy?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. Gentleman thinks of a number and then doubles it for domestic consumption. I am surprised that he raises that matter today. I direct him to the answer that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs gave in the House a day or so ago. He said, for the avoidance of doubt,

    “we are committed to the maintenance of a viable network of post offices”,

    including rural post offices. Pensioners will continue to be able to receive their pensions from the post office. We have encouraged them to make payments into their banks on a voluntary basis. But it is

    “not Government policy to remove the right of pensioners to receive their pensions from the post office.”–[ Official Report, 13 May 1993, Vol. 224, c. 1035.]

    Mr. William Powell : Does my right hon. Friend agree that this year’s public expenditure review is likely to be one of the toughest on record and that any restraint there must be in public expenditure must be shared to the fullest extent by local authorities as well as by Whitehall? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local authorities would be wise to plan on the basis of no real growth in expenditure for the next financial year and that the Government are prepared to back up their policies by the fullest use of their capping powers?

    The Prime Minister : We certainly have to consider the range of public expenditure, both centrally and for local government, in the public expenditure discussions that will begin very shortly. Those discussions will be concluded soon and we will make our views known to local authorities and others. On the general principle, my hon. Friend is clearly right to believe that we need to restrain public expenditure in the interests of the economy as a whole.

     

    Q3. Mr. William O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.

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

    Mr. O’Brien : Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious and grave concern of all housing associations about the cut in Government resources for affordable housing? Is he also aware that if that policy continues, rents will rise sky high and people will not be able to afford housing? Is he prepared to listen to housing associations in relation to their concerns about affordable housing and will he also listen to local authorities which have the resources, finances and ability to provide affordable housing?

    The Prime Minister : We have not in the past only listened to the Housing Corporation and to housing associations ; we have acted on the basis of what they have had to say to us. In 1992-93, we spent more than £2.3 billion on the Housing Corporation, £350 million or so through estate action and more than £1.6 billion through local authorities. We have also provided specific help for the homeless, with nearly £100 million over the past three financial years and £86 million made available over the next three financial years. As a result of the measures that we have taken throughout the past decade, there are more home owners than ever before ; council tenants have more control over their own estates–I know that that is not popular with Opposition Members–the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless people has been cut by 38 per cent. ; the rise in mortgage repossessions has been reversed ; and the number of people sleeping rough in central London has more than halved. Why did the hon. Gentleman mention none of that?

    Mr. Hayes : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Italian people got it absolutely right when they rejected proportional representation through the ballot box? Does he believe that those people who are rather cynically toying with the idea are doing that simply because it is the only way in which they will get their sticky little fingers on the levers of power?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that, and I know that I have a lot of support on the Opposition Benches for that particular view. Last year, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said :

    “Any move on electoral reform by Labour would be interpreted as defeatist.”

     

    Q4. Mr. Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 May.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Will the Prime Minister now tell the House which of the technical reasons that make it impossible to privatise Northern Ireland water within the lifetime of this Parliament do not apply to Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : We are still considering the consultation in Scotland, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I think that it is better to reply after we have considered all the consultation.

    Mr. Matthew Banks : Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain has been entirely right to reject calls for further substantial military action in the Bosnian region? Such action would lead to guerrilla warfare, substantial loss of life and–given recent comments–bomb outrages on the streets of London without any furtherance of the peacemaking process or helping to find a permanent solution to the problem.

    The Prime Minister : There are many complex difficulties to be solved in the particular problems faced in Bosnia. I believe that the stance that we have taken, which has been shared by many of our allies, has been entirely the right stance in Bosnia. We continue to work with our allies towards a series of objectives. I hope that we will soon be able to bring permanent peace to that area.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Newspaper Society Luncheon – 5 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Newspaper Society Luncheon, held on Wednesday 5th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say that I do regard today as an important occasion to talk about some of the particular difficulties and some of the opportunities that are faced by the press generally but most importantly in terms of today’s occasion, the regional press. It does I believe have a very special place in our community and I want to touch upon that in a little more detail in a few moments.

    It is a rapidly changing industry, it has come a huge way since that old and hoary headline we all know about the sinking of the Titanic, Aberdeen Man Feared Lost at Sea – all that seems a very long time ago. Regional papers, local papers, have a much broader vision these days. New technology, new attitudes, new approaches, all of those in their different ways have transformed your industry. And if I may say so on this occasion, I think no-one pushed harder for such transformation than the great Malcolm Graham, the grand old man of regional press if I might put it that way, who sadly has just died and who I know must have been well known to many of the people here today.

    I teased about Aberdeen Man Lost at Sea. But I have to say, despite the modern attitudes of your industry, despite the changes in it, the headline writers still occasionally have a tricky job. For example, I have in my hand the Lynn News. Those people who wonder whether I read the press now know that I read the regional press. And last week’s Lynn News announced: “MP introduces his bride-to-be, Emma.” Now that seems straightforward enough, doesn’t it? Less straightforward than you might think. The Member of Parliament of course is our old friend Henry Bellingham who is shrinking into the tablecloth over there on that table, and I offer Henry my congratulations. His engagement, you may think, is just plain, simple, straightforward good news. Or is it? Read on in the Lynn News. It says here that an ancestor of Henry’s murdered the Prime Minister and the Tories are the party of tradition. Family tradition, Henry, is a wonderful thing, but so is ambition, and they may clash.

    My current favourite headline does not as it happens come from today’s press but from headlines: “Better times”, it says, “are really on the way”. I think that should be good news for everyone although of course good news for some is bad news for others. And to quote a recent headline in the Financial Times: “British recovery worries Delors” – very snappy, I like it, and poor Jacques, if our recovery really does worry him, he is in for a very bad time in the future.

    Mr President, let me say something about how I see the importance of your industry. Or perhaps a little better, let me quote Alan Proper from the Kent Messenger Group, and I do so now: “The strength of the regional press lies in binding together local communities and giving people back a sense of belonging.” I think that is right. And in giving us just that you often, as you hinted in your modest remarks earlier, Mr President, you often out-perform the nationals. People want the news, they want to be informed, but I believe they want the good news as well as the other news, they want to know about local events and they want to contribute themselves. Public figures of course may respond to the press by lurching from blase to paranoid during the space of a single afternoon. But for private citizens penlines on the turn are an event. You can brighten lives or you can blight them. So I would say to you, dip your pens in kindliness and tolerance when writing of private citizens, you record the real Britain so be a recording angel when you do.

    So far as public figures are concerned you may think different circumstances apply. I certainly know, and I see a number of my Parliamentary colleagues from different parties here today, I know many Members of Parliament are tempted to use Sir Jacob Astley’s prayer. He wrote as follows:

    “Oh Lord, thou knowest how busy I shall be this day,

    If I forget thee, do not thou forget me.”

    A very wise man, Sir Jacob Astley, and any Westminster politician who thinks he can forget the real Britain and forget his local newspapers will be out of touch now and probably be out of office later.

    I welcome unreservedly, and I say so not simply because Harry Roach is sitting opposite me, I would have said it anyway, if you spent Tuesday and Thursday afternoons like I do you lose that sense of delicacy, I welcome unreservedly yesterday’s statement by the Press Standard’s Board of Finance outlining measures to strengthen self-regulation. The government is still considering its response to the Calcutt Report but I have not a shred of doubt that this positive move will play its part in moving the debate forward, we will keep a particularly close eye, Harry, on how effectively and widely the new measures are implemented.

    The best of the national press can be very good even though it may not thunder like the times of delaying, often it drizzles, sometimes it drizzles acid rain. There are moments when Quintus Flyde of the People’s Vanner appears to have leapt straight from the pages of Trollop into contemporary journalism. Quintus Flyde was very fierce with politicians and I think it has to be said that politicians are sometimes very fierce with the Quintus Flydes. Baldwin’s memorable remarks about press power and responsibility have travelled famously down the years.

    And last night reading in the watches of the night that remarkable Martin Gilbert biography of Churchill I came across Churchill’s letter to The Times complaining that his editorials had, in his words, and now I quote, “been a very important adverse factor in the life and strengths of the British Empire and Commonwealth.” And he went on, in remarkable fashion: “Time after time they have thrown their immense weight on the wrong side and such is their power that they have been able, again and again, to blow away the head of every front or formation which could be made to keep Britain great and strong.”

    Thank goodness it is not like that today. Churchill, you may equally be interested to know, wrote his letter, but as Martin Gilbert faithfully reports, he did not send his letter which suggests that underneath the frustration there was a very practical politician indeed.

    Now obviously, just as the press has responsibilities to the public, so the government has responsibilities to let the public and the press know the state of our thinking. We will never be proscribers but there is a common climate of anxiety about malevolent abuse. Contemplate for a moment, particularly important I believe to the regional and local press, the new opportunities to challenge government and public services. Under the Citizen’s Charter we are publishing more information about public services, about school league tables, hospital waiting times and shortly the performance of local authorities as well, comparing one with another. Rich pickings for local reporters, bad news for the inefficient, ammunition for the awkward squads and even fun for trouble-makers, but all now published and all available for use.

    We are giving, too, much more detail of the thinking behind government policies. Ten times more background information accompanied this year’s budget compared with 15 years ago and we are opening up the process of government, Cabinet Committees, historical records, disputed criminal verdicts, the Channel Island occupation papers, even the secret of the FCO Sphynx Suez – all now available. Sir Humphrey Appleby, a wonderful character, I believe of fiction, once said: “You can either have openness or you can have government, but you can’t have both.” I don’t understand this next line but you can have William Waldegrave. And this summer he will be publishing a White Paper on openness with further proposals to open the workings of government and public services to public scrutiny. I want to turn Sir Humphrey into a melancholy ghost who has lost his mystique.

    In recent weeks, Mr President, a cascade of economic information has been released that suggests we are moving out of recession and back into growth. The recovery is in its infancy but it is growing daily, GDP up 0.6 percent in the first quarter; new car registrations 11.5 percent up on a year ago; manufacturing output up; construction orders up; retail sales at record levels; exports at record levels; unemployment down for the second month in succession. And business optimism, so vital, that instinct, that feel that people have for what is likely to happen in the future, business optimism, as assessed by the CBI, the highest for 10 years. Other surveys, private sector, not government surveys, paint the same picture.

    And the vital ingredient for our economic future is confidence, confidence that recovery has started, confidence it can be sustained, confidence we can compete successfully abroad in manufacturing and services. But confidence and recovery need to be earned. It was the long hard slog to get inflation down, down from nearly 11 percent to just 1.9 percent, that laid the foundation for recovery. We started that process before we joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism and the benefits had started to come through before we left the Exchange Rate Mechanism. Interest rates had been cut from 15 percent to 10 percent before last September. GDP had stabilised before September and started growing again in the second half of last year. And it is now clear that retail sales, industrial production and manufacturing Investment all started to recover from around the middle of last year. So anyone who argues that leaving the Mechanism was the sole cause of recovery should inform themselves by looking at those facts. We were cutting inflation and cutting interest rates well before and recovery was starting to show through, but we could not have sustained recovery if we had not already got inflation under control. And those conditions, low inflation, low interest rates, competitive exchange rates combined with high productivity, those are the quiet enormously influential guarantors of sustained recovery for the future.

    Of course our recession was exacerbated by a slow-down in the world economy. Similarly, the speed of our recovery will be affected by the recession in many of our European markets. But the fact is we have emerged from recession ahead of our main European competitors and ahead is a good place to stay.

    Mr President, in recent months public and parliamentary debates have been dominated by the economy and by the Maastricht Bill. And one of the effects of that has been that a vast range of reforming legislation has been passing through Parliament in some cases almost without notice, other than perhaps by those Parliamentarians who spent so many hours debating it, discussing it, reforming it and amending it. Recently I asked my staff to draw up a list of our manifesto commitments and the progress that we had made thus far in putting them into effect. On a rough estimate we have already fulfilled rather more than one-third of the commitments we made in the manifesto, in fact more manifesto pledges have been honoured in the Parliamentary year since the 1992 election than was achieved after the elections of 1979, 1983 or 1987.

    And we have had resounding successes in taking important reforming measures through Parliament – the Housing Bill, the Asylum Bill, the Lotteries Bill, the Education Bill, the Employment Bill have now all either received Royal Assent or are well on the way to the Statute Book. As Michael Caine might aptly have put it, not a lot of people know that, but that is what has happened in the midst of the debates about the economy and the Maastricht Treaty.

    And neither I think should we overlook some of the other notable successes, the dogs that did not bark, the successful introduction of the Council Tax and the long awaited reforms of health care in London. And then there is a whole list of solid achievements, of far reaching reforms that just over a year ago people said would never happen – the 800 grant maintained schools, the 150 National Health Service Trusts, the 3,000 GP fund-holders, new rights for parents, new rights for pupils, new rights for trade union members, new rights for tenants, more opportunities for people to buy their own homes, more opportunities to take out their own pensions, more opportunities for parents to know how their children are doing at school. All that has happened over the period of the last year. And we turned over some stones that were left unturned throughout the 1980s. We will abolish NEDDY, we are getting rid of the Wages Councils, controversial in many cases but things that we believe to be right, that we have done and our opponents have rightly opposed for they believe we are wrong, that is the essence of Parliament.

    We are bringing the fresh air of private enterprise into the railways and we are saying that public services – all of them – are no longer no-go areas for government reforms. Pushing through changes as profound and wide ranging as anything we attempted in the 1980s, and just as we succeeded then, I believe we will succeed on this occasion.

    So away from the headlines, away from the smoke and fire of Westminster, we have been pushing ahead with a radical agenda to extend choice, open up opportunity and enable more people to know the pride of ownership. That is what has been happening.

    In the year ahead I want us to make more progress on that vital domestic political agenda and I want to single out just two areas where we will be moving the debate forward. Firstly, and I make no apology for putting it first – law and order. I know there is growing concern about crime, I know it because I share that concern. We have already brought forward measures to tackle the problem of persistent young offenders and new age travellers. Ken Clarke has responded to concerns that have been expressed about the Criminal Justice Act. So we have shown that we are prepared to listen and then act, but there is more that we can and must do and you can expect to see further action in the next session.

    For I am personally in no doubt at all, when that smoke and fire spoke about has cleared away and the Maastricht Treaty is concluded and the immediate concerns and day to day high publicity of the economy have been swept to one side, the matter that is most likely to be on the minds of all of our fellow citizens up and down the country is the need for us to deal firmly with the concerns that they face about crime and the determination to uphold law and order and it is right for Parliament to put it in the centre of its concerns, and that I am determined is precisely where it will be.

    And secondly, businessmen tell me time after time about the problem that they face from over-regulation. Again I believe they are right to be worried, unnecessary bureaucracy destroys jobs, it is as simple as that. I am not amongst those people who decry bureaucracy almost as though it was a smear word, bureaucracy has its role and it is a vital role in many industries and in the maintenance of government and in many ways and on many occasions it is very efficiently performed and I welcome that.

    But unnecessary bureaucracy is a drain on the economy. No-one, for example, who cares about unemployment can be complacent about the great tomes of rules and regulations with which business are burdened. That battle against red tape is never ending, it is a battle that must be fought year, after year, after year, after year, the enemy never seems to lie down and die, it always reappears in one guise or another. So we need to get its hand round its throat, and let me say to you quite clearly today, for me deregulation is an absolute priority and I believe you may see that reflected when we bring forward our legislative programme in the autumn.

    There is a great deal that needs to be done, a great deal that want to do, a great deal that I believe the people of this country want to see Parliament do if we are going to build on the reforms of the 1980s and turn Britain into a country that will succeed in the 1990s. That is why the legislative programme this year is so full; that is why the legislative programme next year – bad news for my parliamentary colleagues of all parties – is going to be very full too and there will be plenty of red meat for every parliamentarian to get his teeth into and equally for the press, both national, regional and local, to comment upon and to examine with care and let me tell you one reason why that must necessarily be so.

    We live, I believe, in the most rapidly-changing decade in peacetime that any of us have ever known. All around us, wherever you look around the world, the competitive environment we face, the people with whom we do business or the people with whom we must transact political exchanges are changing as well. We lead that change or we will find ourselves led by that change. I don’t want to see Britain with a halter round its neck led away by other countries. I want us to play our part in leading in the development of the 1990s both within the European Community and beyond.

    It is very easy – and people are often very fashionably inclined to do it – to stand back and decry the contribution that this country has made, can make, is making and will continue to make in the different fora around the world. That is not a party point. I make no party point. I think it is an instinctive reflection of our historical background that we have a particular role to play in Europe and in the world and I believe it is overwhelmingly the view of Parliament – again irrespective of party – that Britain should play its part in those changes and to do so with maximum influence we need to make sure domestically and economically that we remain ahead of the field.

    It will need changes. Sometimes they will be painful changes. Change is often difficult, often debilitating, often something people would like to put aside and wish it wasn’t necessary but unless we wish to decline, we must face up to many of the needs that we see for changes and implement those changes during this particular decade. I want to be certain that when we start the next Milllennium in 80-odd months time – for that is how close it is – that we can look back on the span of the 1990s and say: “Not only did we deal with the contemporary problems; we laid the groundwork for a more successful, prosperous, secure and happy country at the beginning of the new century!”

    Mr. President, let me just finally turn back, if I may, to your own industry. It shouldn’t, I think, surprise you that I feel a certain sympathy and kinship for your industry. After all, politicians and some journalists hold an equal place in the public’s esteem – as every opinion poll shows! [Laughter] There we are and I think you know where we are! There we are at the bottom of the list along with estate agents who are deeply embarrassed to see themselves bracketed with us!

    So let us see who can improve their rating fastest. We, the Government and the newspaper industry national and local, won’t always agree, Mr. President, but let us join forces in one thing at least. As I said a moment ago, our world is fast changing, disturbing and too many people are uncertain of the future, fearful of losing much that is traditional and valuable about our society – tolerance, decency and respect for others.

    Alan Sprossor spoke of the danger of people becoming – and I quote directly from him again – “strangers in their own land” and he spoke also of the role of local newspapers in preventing that. I agree with him. Let us offer support, show that those British values we care about are still alive and well. Like you, the regional and local newspaper industry, we speak for the local hearts of Britain. Let us help local communities take control and shape their own local services, promoting choice and encouraging responsibility. It is work worth doing; it is work worth doing together; it is work, I believe, that millions of our fellow citizens out there hunger to see done both at Westminster and locally so let us see to what extent we can work together and build that better Britain we want to see and build it from the ground up. [Applause].

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    I ask this question, Prime Minister, not because I am sitting opposite you [indistinct] [laughter] I was very pleased indeed to hear the fact that you welcomed the improvements that [indistinct] announced yesterday about self-regulation. What I would like to say is given those improvements and given that the industry – and by “the industry” I mean the national, regional and local press – is not opposed to legislation to protect the privacy of members of the public providing that that legislation is applicable to all and not just to newspapers, would you agree, Prime Minister, that the way forward is to couple that general [indistinct] with continuing improvements in self-regulation rather than [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me say firstly to Harry it is unsurprising you should have a question in mind and I answer it not because I’m sitting opposite you but because I am happy to deal with what is a very important point.

    Let me elaborate firstly on the question of self-regulation. I always welcome moves to improve self-regulation. I think it is attractive, I think it is desirable and I shall study very carefully, as I said, precisely what you proposed yesterday and how it works. We will need to see how successful it is before passing judgement on it and deciding absolutely what to do. We will take that into account when responding to the Heritage Select Committee Report as we are bound to do in due course.

    Let me tell you some of the instincts I have about press regulation. I have made it clear before and I am happy to make it clear again today that I am reluctant to go down the route of statutory press complaints tribunals. I am reluctant to do that. I have made that clear before and am happy to reiterate that point today. We have reserved our position but our reluctance is genuine.

    We have accepted the recommendations that Calcutt produced for criminal offences of unwanted intrusion into people’s privacy. We have done that because we think there is a difficult balance to be kept. There is firstly upon the one hand the legitimate right of the press to investigate and report and as I said a few moments ago when I spoke to you, I am not a proscriber, I am not in the business of restricting the legitimate rights of investigation of the press but I do want to balance it with the legitimate right to privacy of individuals as well. It is a difficult balance to keep but it is one in my experience that the regional and local press particularly have well understood over many years and well appreciate.

    We all know from time to time that the desire to know goes further than the desire to know legitimately ought in the interests of the individual and you have seen the sort of occasions I mean: where there is a vast collection of people with bugging devices, telephoto lenses and a degree of intrusion and harassment often of people in a very defensive position, perhaps when someone has died in a very emotional situation and I think many people think that goes too far. Much of that is for self-regulation and I hope your proposals will help. Bits of it, I think after Calcutt, are perhaps for the Government to consider regulating but we are not in the business, as I said, of going down the route of a statutory press complaints procedure.

    We are considering precisely how we should proceed. I think it is right that we should take a good deal of time to do so because it is a very important series of principles that are at stake. They are not principles that all lie on one side of the argument. There are legitimate principles over the right to know as well as legitimate concerns over the right to privacy. I don’t want to make a snap judgement on what might be in any proposals we produce. Let me say to you: when we produce those proposals, it will only have been after the greatest consideration and care and with no intention to do violence to the traditional freedom of the press. That is not our intention and we will announce our conclusions when we have finished our consideration. That, I fear, will be a little way ahead [applause].

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I do, but let me say a few general words and then I’ll come directly to article 3B which for those of you who have been carefully following the debates in the House of Commons through day and night and not reading Martin Gilbert’s biographies will know is the clause that actually deals with subsidiarity.

    Let me say a word or two about Europe first. There are three sorts of people who look at Europe and our position in it.

    There are those who wish in their hearts we were never part of it and the world was still as it was a long time ago and that we were still sending Henry II abroad to teach the French how to behave [laughter] – and some of those may be here.

    Then there are those who are full of the milk of human idealism and do actually see a great deal of advantage in a centralised Europe.

    I would suggest to you that both of those two extremes are a minority of opinion amongst the British people.

    And then there are the vast majority of people, amongst whom I stand myself, who look across the European Community and see the reality of what life is industrially and commercially and the opportunities that exist for us if we play a part in it and the disadvantages that lie ahead for us if we do not. Those people, I believe, take my view that we are in the European Community, 60% of our exports go to the European Community. We export more to Germany these days than we do to the United States and Japan added together. There are vastly important markets for us and for our industry and the European Community of which we are a part makes the rules that govern this great free-trading single market, a free-trading single market that has come about because of the British influence.

    We have a choice: get out and lose many of those markets; stand aside without influence and let the French, the Germans, the Dutch and the Spanish make the rules that will govern the way our industry operates or get in the middle of it and actually form alliances with other people who think as we do and ourselves begin to frame the sort of European Community that is compatible to us and compatible to the rest of the European Community and there I must say is where I take my stand as to the right policy for the United Kingdom.

    There are those who say to us: “But you never win!” Where have they been these people who say we never win? Who invented the Single Market, the free-trading aspect of Europe? A British commissioner. Started by a British Prime Minister, completed at Edinburgh by a British Prime Minister.

    Who pushed for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy? The British pushed for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

    Who want the European Community to widen and bring in the EFTAn states? The British wanted it to widen and bring in the EFTAn states and why? Because what we have at the moment is a fragment of Europe, not the real Europe; it is a fragment of Europe.

    Bring in the EFTAns and you bring in free traders, you bring in people who will contribute to the Community budget and you make it infinitely more likely that you will have the sort of European Community that will be amenable to you as a businessman and to every other businessman in this country.

    And then lift our eyes for a moment above the mundane problems of commerce and the profit and loss account nationally or at company level. Twice this century the world has gone to war and the war has started in Western Europe. That is inconceivable and the principal reason it is inconceivable is that intermeshing of trade that has come about over the past 30 to 40 years in the European Community, that interlinking of mutual self-interest that renders any war other than a paper war or a war of words absolutely unthinkable and we have an opportunity not just to enshrine that but to spread that. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the collapse of communism, the opportunities that exist with enlargement of the Community to the north with the EFTAns and potential enlargement to take in the Visegrad countries – our old friends from Hungary, Poland, the Czech Lands and Slovakia – opens the possibility of extending that free trade principle, that democratic principle. With free trade there is democracy; without free trade there often is no democracy at all. Those are historic political opportunities that we actually have as well.

    That is – you may put it – the high-flown reason for being part of the European Community but you say that I am buried in all sorts of boring and tedious regulations. I know that. What do you think I spend my life fighting in Europe for? It is to get rid of those tedious regulations. Where do they come from? They come from the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. The Maastricht Treaty gives us an opportunity for the first time to start reversing that.

    What was I doing last night? I was discussing with the new French Prime Minister the virtues of subsidiarity with which he wholeheartedly agrees. What was I doing in Salzburg when I went to see Chancellor Kohl on his health cure? [Laughter] I was actually eating a five-course meal while he drank herbal tea! [Laughter and applause]. But apart from that, we were discussing matters like subsidiarity.

    It is not just we who feel frustrated about it. Ask the French how they feel about the fact that they are often stifled and you will get the same sort of response that you had a moment ago. Ask the Germans how they feel about subsidiarity with the troubles they have got between their federal parliament and the their Lander all the way around Germany.

    What has changed in the European Community is that Britain no longer stands alone. That is what has changed and we have the opportunity of forming those alliances and shaping in a way we have not previously had the sort of Community in concert with our partners that we like.

    Let me put this point to you. If any other European country suddenly said: “We are going to do it all our way and the rest of you in the Community can follow on behind!” If the French said that, the British would be up in arms and equally, I have to say to you that when the British beat their chests and say: “In a Community of Twelve we are going to do it our way or not at all!” the same frustration, the same blockage, the same breaking of links that will actually reach concrete results also comes about so I no longer am Henry II. I cannot go abroad and impose my will. I have to negotiate and agree what is right for this country but I don’t have any doubt that it is right for us to be there, right for us to create our sort of Community and I have no doubt that the principle of subsidiarity

    [small section missing]

    I put it at its simplest. The Maastricht Treaty is in British national interest. If I had wanted cheap, short-term popularity, if I had wanted to don a John Bull vest and been cheered no doubt in odd meetings from Lands End to John O’Groats I could have said: “Away with treaty! We’ll all do it differently!” but it isn’t in our interest and whatever the manoeuvrings and interests of others are, my responsibility is to proceed with what I passionately believe is in the British national interest and that means ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, Britain in Europe with the Treaty without the Social Charter playing a role in developing the future of Europe. I believe that is an historic role for the British nation and I believe it is an historic role for the British Conservative Party and upon that point I will not be moved. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Speech in London – 26 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made in London on Monday 26th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Chairman of Governors, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen. In welcoming you warmly to London may I firstly refer briefly to the events of Saturday. All too many of us present today have had experience of terrorism in one country or another. The world’s terrorists have one thing in common – failure. They have failed to attract widespread support, they have failed the rules of civilised life, they have failed to undermine democracy. On Saturday they murdered Mr Ed Henty. I know that I speak for everyone in expressing my deepest sympathy to his family.

    For years terrorists in the United Kingdom have tried to bomb and murder their way to a political objective. They have won no sympathy for their cause and nothing but contempt for their campaign. On Saturday they tried to maim the commerce of the City of London. They failed again. The EBRD, for one, illustrated that very clearly. Close to the explosion the staff of the bank worked on without interruption. You, the delegates, continued your meetings without interruption.

    This morning London has given its response. The markets are open in currencies and commodities, stocks and shares, insurance and shipping. In short, today in the City it is business as usual.

    Later this week I will meet the Lord Mayor of London to reconsider security measures. But even as we repair the damage the City will continue to operate as one of the great financial centres of the world.

    I want this morning to talk about an idea of Europe and an idea of partnership. When the Iron Curtain crashed down across the middle of Europe in the late-1940s it divided a continent that had been joined by the ties of history, culture, a religion, for over 1,000 years. Much of European history has been about the ebb and flow of that sense of European identity. Religious strife fractured the unity of Christendom. Emperors, military adventurers, ideologists and dictators made one attempt after another to impose a forced unity on the continent. The Stalinist attempt to create an empire of the Soviets from the Pacific to the Atlantic was no more than the latest in a long line of inevitable failures. I say inevitable because it is not possible to impose a crude uniformity on a continent whose traditions are as rich and as varied as ours.

    The collapse of communism in Europe is both a restoration and a revolution. It has restored national freedom to the countries of the former Soviet Bloc, it has restored individual freedom to the citizens of those countries and it has restored the possibility of partnership between East and West, between countries whose divisions have caused so much suffering over the centuries.

    But the end of the Cold War has imposed its own burden, the burden of choice and the burden of responsibility. The fate of the peoples of Eastern Europe, of Russia and of the countries of the former Soviet Union lies first of all in the hands of the people of those countries themselves. It is not surprising that many in those countries and many outside observers are daunted by the political, social and economic challenge that they face.

    For now they have to undergo a new revolution, not a revolution of barricades, of flags and slogans, not the exhilarating popular European revolutions of the 19th and 20th century which saw so much heroism among ordinary people and so much betrayal by their leaders, what Eastern Europe faces today is a new kind of revolution, a revolution in political attitudes, in methods of work, in economic and political institutions, in international relations. It is a revolution in which the old kinds of rhetoric and the old kinds of heroism are a positive disadvantage, a revolution without glamour.

    Such a revolution cannot take place quickly, it cannot take place easily. To bring it to success will require patience and tolerance, it will require tact and understanding both within the countries of Eastern Europe and from their partners in the West.

    But it is a prospect of hope as well as of apprehension. Look at the progress that has been made, even in countries with little experience in that most difficult of political arts – the art of democracy. Free and fair elections have become the norm, the norm in countries where 98.8 percent of the electorate once used to vote for a single candidate. Slovakia and the Czechlands have parted company peacefully and by agreement. President Yeltsin is the first Russian leader in the history of that immense country to be elected by popular suffrage. Russia voted again yesterday, so far we have only the early results, they suggest that the Russian people have renewed their support for President Yeltsin, for democracy and for reform. Those are the policies that have also attracted the strong support of the international community. As Russia moves towards reform she deserves our continuing support for her success is in the interests of us all.

    Mr Chairman, economic change everywhere is gathering strength. Poland is the first country in Eastern Europe to regain economic growth. In the Czechlands privatisation is proceeding apace. Foreign investment is flourishing in Hungary. Estonia has established its currency. Even in places where there is little or no tradition of private business ordinary people are beginning to take advantage of new opportunities. They are working for themselves and for their families. Small scale business and agriculture are spreading in Russia and elsewhere. Larger enterprises are being privatised. Industries which were run by bureaucrats are being handed over to the people who best know how to make them work.

    The grounds for hope, hope that the process of renewal and change can be brought to success are not trivial. The former communist countries of Europe enjoy solid assets, they are well educated, skilled in many of the scientific, industrial and technical skills which a modern industrial society requires. They are now well informed both about the problems of their own countries and about the possibilities of the outside world, they are free to meet foreigners, to travel abroad, to draw on the experiences of those in other countries who have benefited from the opportunities offered by a liberal, economic and political system.

    And above all, above all the people of the former communist countries of Europe can never again be seduced by the Marxist lie, by the proposition that the state is capable of imposing prosperity and that it is worth in exchange surrendering political freedom and the right to think for oneself.

    History could of course take a different path. Yugoslavia is an extreme and harrowing example, a country which was making good economic progress and appeared to the outside world to be shaking off ancient ethnic and religious rivals has dissolved into war and atavism. Much about the former Yugoslavia was unique to that country. I do not wish to suggest that I expect new, similar tragedies to break out elsewhere.

    But Yugoslavia is far from the only ethnic conflict bedevilling the post-communist world, Nogorno-Karabakh, for example, must not be overlooked. These are warnings that we must not allow human passion and despair to escape from our control.

    Those of us in Western Europe who have not suffered oppression, who have not suffered oppression and the artificial poverty which communism imposed on our fellows to the east, cannot assume the burden of choice and the burden of responsibility on their behalf. In the end it has to be the initiative of ordinary people and their common enterprises, freely entered into, which will bring the former communist countries of Europe through their present difficulties.

    But we in Western Europe have a clear and inescapable moral duty: to demonstrate in practice our solidarity with those who lived under communism, who had the courage to overthrow it and who are now paying the price of its political and economic deprivations.

    That is not simply a moral duty, it is a debt of gratitude to those heroic people in the East who fought for political change and who did so much to lift the terrible threat of a devastating war which hung over all of us and over our children.

    We in Western Europe bring to our support for our neighbours to the East many instruments, international institutions, governmental programmes, business collaboration and the generous efforts of individuals. My own government has contributed 1.8 billion pounds sterling through bilateral and multilateral programmes to help the former communist countries. Others have been equally generous and we are mobilising our collective institutions as well.

    The main collective institutions of Western Europe, like those of the former Soviet Bloc, were created in large part as a response to the threats of the Cold War. But unlike the institutions of the Soviet Bloc, they were freely entered into by their members. They have therefore survived the end of the Cold War and are beginning to adapt to the challenges of a world no longer conditioned by the old fears. The European Community is already strengthening its partnership with its neighbours to the East, it has generous technical assistance programmes in place. It and its member states together provide the lion’s share of Western aid. And beyond that the Community, the European Community, is very conscious of its moral and political vocation to support democracy throughout the continent. It looks forward to welcoming countries from the East as it once welcomed those from the south, as soon as those countries become capable of bearing the political and economic burdens, responsibilities and rights of membership of the Community.

    At Edinburgh last December, Community Heads of State and Government welcomed a far reaching report from the Commission on relations with our associate partners in central Europe. At Copenhagen we must take decisions. We need to tell the central Europeans clearly and unambiguously that we want them inside the European Union as full members. They may ask when I say to them it is up to you to make yourselves ready for membership, it is up to us to help you prepare for that membership.

    That is why the Europe or Association Agreements are so important. They have come in for plenty of criticism, not least, Mr President, from time to time, from you. But let us not belittle what has been achieved. The agreements have substantially liberalised trade. Trade between the European Community and the Visegrad countries has already increased by some 18 percent. But the process of liberalisation needs to go faster. Your cherished desire, and mine, Mr President, is to liberalise trade throughout the continent. I welcome unreservedly the European Community’s recent decision to set the goal of a free trade area with Russia. We must now work hard to put it in place.

    We all have problems in opening up our markets in certain sensitive areas. But I believe the Community should practise what it preaches. Trade liberalisation is the most effective and permanent means we have to help consolidate political stability and economic growth. After all, exports from Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia countries to the Community represent 50 percent of their total exports but only 2 percent of European Community imports. We cannot expect them to liberalise, moving towards market economies, if we do not lead by example.

    Indeed we can afford to be generous. As consumers we all benefit from our own generosity. If the Europe Agreements are implemented imaginatively, if we open our markets, then accession at an early date should be a realistic objective.

    NATO is another institution in transition. It no longer faces the threat to the East which was its main reason for being. Instead it is developing forms of cooperation with its former adversaries. Politicians from East and West meet in the North Atlantic Cooperation Council to discuss mutual problems of security. Russian Generals visit NATO military headquarters to talk about the problems of running down military establishments as the Cold War recedes into the past. There is even talk, so far highly preliminary talk, of the possibility of mounting joint peace-keeping operations in the disturbed parts of our common continent. It is all light years away from the terrifying confrontation of the past.

    And in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, whose annual meeting we are celebrating today, we are specifically devoted to the proposition that all Europeans and all those outside Europe who have an interest in the fate of the continent have a duty to combine in partnership to ensure that the post-communist revolution in Europe leads to prosperity and to democracy.

    The bank is still developing its activities, still learning from the experience of the two short years since it was set up. It has already contributed over 1.6 billion to western investment in Eastern Europe. It has already generated a total project value of 7.9 billion pounds sterling. That is a result for which the bank deserves credit. The bank must now go on about its task in the most cost-effective way possible, ensuring value for taxpayers’ money, of building up its operations in the region to assist the transition to market economies and to foster the private sector.

    I spoke a few moments ago of the importance of small business. The EBRD has just been asked by the Group of Seven Foreign and Finance Ministers, following their meeting in Tokyo, to establish a fund to promote small and medium size Russian enterprises. This was a key priority identified by the Russians. It provides the ideal chance for the bank to show its strength. In the end, however, it is not international institutions or governments alone which will bring the post-communist revolution to a peaceful, democratic and prosperous fruition. Politicians, officials and experts from outside drop briefly into the former communist capitals and dispense advice, often I believe without fully appreciating the immensity of the political and social, or even of the technical problems, which face advice, even when it is right and then risks being rejected.

    No, in the end, what matters is the human element, the sense that we Europeans are involved together as equals in a common undertaking. The truth is that the political and economic tasks which face the former communist countries of Europe are tasks of unprecedented difficulty. There are no simple, no easy, no rapid solutions and none of us has a monopoly of the right answers. Even if the prime responsibility for coping with the post-communist revolution must rest with the people most concerned, we all have a common interest in their success.

    That truth is understood by ordinary businessmen and ordinary people in both halves of our formerly divided continent. I am regularly amazed and moved by the number of professional people in my own country who are willing to make real sacrifices of their own time and money to help their fellow professionals in the East. I am struck by the number of Western businessmen who believe that they have a duty as well as an interest in seeking out viable joint projects with the businessmen who are emerging from the wreckage of communism. And. I know that their efforts are welcomed by their partners, by all those ordinary people in the East who are taking energetic advantage of their new freedoms to work effectively for themselves, for their families, for their communities and for their countries. For most of them – remember this – for most of them it is the first opportunity they have ever had to control their own fate.

    Let me conclude, Mr Chairman, with this thought. It is the task of all of us here today, politicians, bankers, officials, to provide the political framework and the financial backing which will help all those people to achieve their aims. For it is by the efforts of millions of ordinary people that we shall recreate the ancient oneness of Europe and lay finally to rest the demons which have caused, and still cause, so much suffering in our common continent. In that cause we should work, and work again, until we have success and they have prosperity.