The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: GATT

  • Mr Major’s Opening Remarks at Arrival of Canadian Prime Minister – 11 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening remarks at the arrival of the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr Mulroney, in London on Tuesday 11th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just say what a pleasure it is to welcome the Prime Minister back to London. He is a very old and dear friend of the United Kingdom and he is always a very welcome guest indeed.

    We have had the opportunity this morning of looking at a whole range of things. We spent quite a time on Bosnia. Canada has had a very distinguished role in assisting in Bosnia; many of their troops have done an absolutely magnificent job over the last year or so and I was able to express my admiration to the Prime Minister for the work that they have done.

    We had the opportunity to discuss GATT, a whole range of bilateral matters, the Prime Minister’s recent visits to Russia and to Germany and a series of other international issues.

    What I am proposing to do this morning is leave the Prime Minister with you. I have some other meetings so I am going to leave him in your good hands. We are delighted to see him. I am looking forward to seeing him for dinner.

  • PMQT – 9 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th March 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Roger Moate : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

    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.

    Sir Roger Moate : Does my right hon. Friend agree that to sign up to the social chapter would inflict incalculable damage on British business and hold back economic recovery? Will he confirm that he will continue to resist the social chapter and can I tell him that in doing so he certainly has my support and should have the support of everyone on this side of the House?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The social chapter would be bad for Britain. It would damage British industry, choke off foreign investment and destroy jobs. I have to say to the House that delay in ratifying the Maastricht treaty would do exactly the same thing. The treaty is in the national interest and we shall pursue it. We want to be inside Europe and outside the social charter.

    Mr. John Smith : Bearing in mind the widespread support for the Committee of the Regions to be composed of elected representatives, including support for that proposition from the Tory-controlled local authority associations, what on earth did the Prime Minister think he was doing in opposing an amendment that any real democrat should have supported?

    The Prime Minister : It was a very bad amendment and it was a very bad amendment for this reason : we made it perfectly clear in the debate that we are not against the inclusion of elected local government representatives, but there are others, including business men, who could add value to its work. That would add an element of flexibility and other partners in Europe have come to similar conclusions. Only Holland and Greece have so far made their nominations to the committee and neither of those countries has confined its membership to elected representatives.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister understand that it was his own foolishness and obstinacy which led him to oppose an amendment which, if he had an ounce of judgment, he could have accepted months ago?

    The Prime Minister : The reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon takes that view is quite clear. He is embarrassed that he has neglected his principles yet again on this Bill. I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what this country cannot afford : the lost jobs, the lost investment and the lost influence that would be put at risk if we were seen to turn our backs on this treaty and our place in Europe, as he and his vote last night indicate that he would do.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not the right hon. Gentleman a fine one to talk about delay, when he promised the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that Third Reading would be delayed until the Danish referendum? Is not the painful truth for the Prime Minister that far from being stabbed in the back, as he complains he has been, he has shot himself in the foot?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said one thing and done another on Europe time after time and in this country and, in Europe, no one will ever trust him again on this issue.

    Mr. Quentin Davies : Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the police on their superb achievement in finding a major hoard of Semtex and in making a number of connected arrests? Does he agree that the defence of society against murder by terrorists is a responsibility of every man and woman and every citizen–including Labour party Members, who until now have continually refused to support the prevention of terrorism Act?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, the Labour party will soon have the opportunity to improve on that record. The Opposition have now voted against the prevention of terrorism Act on 11 occasions. Unless they vote with us tomorrow on that Act they should pipe down on crime for good.

     

    Q2. Mr. Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Is the Prime Minister aware of the devastation caused by water cut-offs to tens of thousands of individuals and families in England and Wales? Will he guarantee that there will be no change in Scots law to allow any such domestic cut-offs in Scotland, particularly as part of any Tory plans to steal, privatise or franchise Scottish water? [Interruption.] It is obvious that this lot do not care, judging by the noise that they make, but we do.

    The Prime Minister : I can give the hon. Gentleman no comfort on that point. Privatisation means a better, more efficient service for the consumer and no more subsidies from the taxpayer. I have no reason to doubt that water privatisation in Scotland will be effective and efficient, as elsewhere.

    Mrs. Peacock : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1992 the United Kingdom clothing industry exported goods worth £2.25 billion, an increase of 8.5 per cent? Is not that a fine example of our first quality manufacturing industry?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that. There is no doubt that the clothing industry and many other manufacturing industries have dramatically increased their exports, not least as a result of the changed economic climate and the changed management structures in so many companies.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Hinchliffe : Does the Prime Minister consider that there is any connection between the prevailing values of the nation and the prevailing values of the Government? Is not there a clear connection between record levels of crime and social breakdown and this Government, who have consistently, in every policy since 1979, appealed to personal selfishness, personal greed and looking after number one?

    The Home Secretary talks about dealing with nasty pieces of work. Is not it true that this country has been run by some nasty pieces of work for the past 14 years and that we are now having to deal with the social consequences?

    The Prime Minister : In the 1980s the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends blamed affluence for crime. These days they tend to blame unemployment for crime. When, if ever, will they blame the criminal, who is truly responsible?

    Sir George Gardiner : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from Maastricht, he enjoys the united support of this party for the Asylum Bill ; the Education Bill ; the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill ; the National Lottery etc. Bill ; with one exception, the Railways Bill ; the Chancellor’s autumn statement ; and his leadership?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right to point to huge areas of agreement and to the enormous extent to which this year’s parliamentary programme has already passed through this House and is in another place. I look forward to completing the rest of our programme, including the European [small section missing].

     

    Communities (Amendment) Bill.

    Q4. Mr. Chisholm : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Chisholm : Will the Prime Minister give a categorical assurance that, whatever else he may try to impose on the Scottish people, he will never seek to change the law which makes the obscenity of water privatisation illegal in Scotland? Will he also give an assurance that he will do not deals on that or any other issue with the Scottish National party? If he does, may we have a copy of the letter, as happened last night?

    The Prime Minister : I must say that when a really substantial deal was done between the Labour party and minority parties, it was in 1970 and it was done by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition.

    As far as water privatisation is concerned, I made my view clear a few moments ago and it will remain as I stated it.

     

    Q5. Mr. Faber : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Faber : Has my right hon. Friend seen the latest Institute of Directors survey, which shows that optimism among business directors about the future of their companies is now at an all-time high since August 1988? Does he agree that that is encouraging news for economic recovery and shows that confidence is returning to businesses, despite the best efforts of Opposition Members to talk Britain down?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right and the number of Opposition Members who were scoffing at the good news he just set out illustrates his point more clearly than anything else. The Institute of Directors survey comes on top of an optimistic survey by the CBI– [Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like that, but it is true. They do not want to know that retail sales rose 1.4 per cent. in January, that car registrations were up 16 per cent. in February and that housing starts and completions are up. They know that good news for the country is bad news for them.

    Mr. Garrett : Is not it the hallmark of a discredited Prime Minister always to say that anybody who criticises him or his policies is unpatriotic?

    The Prime Minister : Only when it is untrue.

     

    Q6. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Is not the decision of the Home Secretary to publish league tables of the relative performances of our police forces welcome, not least at a time when the Government are spending more than ever on the police and when there are more policemen on the streets? Surely the ordinary citizen is entitled to know the relative performance of his local police force.

    The Prime Minister : I believe that he is so entitled and we intend to ensure that he can. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will support that and I hope that Opposition Members will not fight the right to give more information to the public in the way they have fought every other right to give more information to the public. They are in favour of freedom of information only in the abstract, not in the reality.

     

    Q7. Mr. Rooney : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Rooney : Is the Prime Minister aware that tomorrow it will be 22 weeks since the President of the Board of Trade promised to intervene before breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner? In view of his absolute lack of intervention in those 22 weeks, are we to assume that he has been on hunger strike, or has there been a military coup?

    The Prime Minister : I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been asleep for 22 weeks. Let me remind him of some of the things that have happened. There has been the autumn statement, increased capital allowances, the abolition of car tax, maintained capital expenditure, a low inflation rate, low interest rates, competitive exchange rates, pushing towards an agreement on GATT and a large number of tours abroad to sell British business. Where has the hon. Gentleman been that he has missed every one of those things?

     

    Q8. Mr. Duncan-Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 March.

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

    Mr. Duncan-Smith : Has my right hon. Friend noticed the reports that the Holland Park school, one-time flagship of trendy 1960s educational teaching, has now started to change tack? Will he contrast that with the support it is now giving to the excellent educational reforms which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is pushing through against the rubbishy education policies coming from the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I have not seen that report, but I certainly very much welcome it. There is growing recognition that the damaging and discreditable theories of the 1960s so admired by the Opposition belong in the history books, but certainly no longer belong in the classrooms. Even the pioneers of those theories recognise that and I hope that soon everyone will acknowledge it.

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

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

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible, but regarding fighter capability].

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    No.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Businessmen in Bombay (Mumbai) – 27 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Businessmen’s Dinner in Bombay (now Mumbai) on Wednesday 27th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a pleasure to be with you today. This is my first visit to India though coming here has long been an ambition. Already it has made a deep impression on me and whetted my appetite to see more. I am sure this will not be my last visit to this great country.

    The first theme of my visit has been dialogue and partnership. I wanted to experience – to develop at the highest level – the increasingly close bilateral dialogue between our two countries. This of course owes much to ancient ties of history, culture, parliamentary democracy and personal contacts. But the changes in the world after the end of the cold war have made possible a new kind of partnership between India and Britain.

    To be truly worthwhile a partnership needs to reflect the interests and realities of today in the new international environment. Old history is valuable. But so is current reality. My discussions in New Delhi this week certainly met both those tests. I look forward to continuing and developing the dialogue.

    My visit was given symbolic meaning by the invitation of the Indian Government for me to be chief guest on Republic Day. The parade was a memorable spectacle. Standing there with the President and the Prime Minister of India I felt that the shadows that the past has sometimes cast over our relationship had been dispelled by a modern partnership between sovereign democracies.

    Another theme of my visit has been confidence – British confidence in India. In our country, as in yours, there is a deeply entrenched commitment to the principles of democracy, tolerance and the rule of law. India’s problems can be solved only by Indians: but, as you work them out, you can be sure of our close interest, sympathetic concern and confidence in India’s secular democracy.

    By the same token, the world has watched with dismay the disturbances and destruction that afflicted this great city earlier this month. I hope and pray that peace and harmony, now restored, can be maintained. You do not need me to tell you of the responsibility which rests with the leaders of the business community in helping to resist the forces of hatred and disruption and healing the social and economic wounds. I bring you today the hope and confidence of the British Government that Bombay, which has met so many challenges in the past, can meet this challenge also.

    And may I say a word about Maharashtra’s governor, Dr. Alexander. India has a tradition of sending her best to be High Commissioner in London. And we return the compliment. We have warm memories in Britain of Dr. Alexander’s time as High Commissioner. He has many friends and admirers and all of these friends wish him well in his new post.

    For your city has a special place in British hearts. The connection goes back to 1661 and has developed over the years as the city has become the vibrant heart of India’s economic and commercial life.

    London and Bombay are the financial capitals of our two countries. The effective provision of financial services is vital, not only for the health of the domestic economy but also as a source of foreign earnings. We are proud of the achievements of the City of London, and we depend on them to help earn our keep in the world. Bombay too has the potential to be a world commercial and financial centre.

    One of the main themes of my visit is the partnership which Britain and India can enjoy in the wider world economy. This is what I want to focus on tonight.

    World Economic Prospects

    The international economy is living through hard times. It is precisely at such times that the temptations of economic isolationism grow, together with the pressures on governments to give special help to their own industries and their own companies. It is precisely at such times that governments must be strongest in resisting these siren calls. For those policies would lead us into a downward spiral of beggar-my-neighbour. We can be sure they would do no one any lasting good and would damage most those who are already most vulnerable.

    Uruguay Round

    We need international co-operation – regionally and globally – to bring back growth to the world economy. The most important key to that recovery remains success in the Uruguay Round.

    An early and comprehensive settlement of these GATT negotiations is crucial for the future health of the international economy. According to OECD estimates it would mean a boost to the world economy of some 200 billion dollars per annum. That in turn means new income and new jobs for millions of people all over the world. It would be folly to put all that at risk.

    I sometimes hear that GATT is arranged to suit the developed countries. It is of course true that we have much at stake. But developing countries need free trade just as much, if not more. Their companies need the opportunity to sell those goods and products where they are competitive, and to buy the inputs they need at prices they can afford. The progressive liberalisation of trade in textiles and agricultural products promises enormous benefits for developing countries, including India. Protectionist barriers damage most those who think they are being protected. The developing countries which have opened their markets most have prospered most. The evidence is there for all to see, not least in Asia. Trade and investment are far more important than aid in promoting sustained economic growth in developing countries.

    So a GATT agreement will be good for India too. Like the rest of us, the Indian Government have seen that the whole settlement is greater than the sum of its parts.

    European Community

    Britain is not of course an independent actor in the GATT talks. The European Commission negotiates on behalf of the 12 members of the European Community. The EC is India’s largest trading partner, and an essential source of investment and development assistance. Britain has just completed its Presidency of the Community. At the Edinburgh Summit last month, we sorted out many of the Community’s own problems.

    The progress of the Community has been further underlined by the opening for business of the European Single Market on the first of this month. It is the biggest market in history. Barriers to trade and enterprise have been broken down. Europeans can now live where they like in the Community and buy goods and services freely in the country of their choice.

    The Community remains open to trade from all parts of the world, and should be increasingly open when Uruguay Round provisions come into force. No new barriers to trade arise from the Single Market. We want to destroy the barriers to trade, not just move them. And the increasing harmonization of standards in the EC makes life easier, not harder, for outside exporters. They have only one target to aim at, rather than 12.

    Last month, under the British Presidency, India and the EC initialled a new Co-operation Agreement. Proof of Britain’s determination to keep the Community open and outward-looking. The new text opens the way for increased co-operation in areas as diverse as trade, investment, development, the environment, agriculture, science and technology, energy, telecommunications and drug abuse.

    We hope that when the Agreement is signed, it will be accompanied by a Joint Statement on political dialogue. This second document – also negotiated under our presidency – enshrines arrangements for the Indian and EC governments to work together closely on a wide range of political and other issues.

    We are your natural partners and friends within the Community and are delighted to continue to make this count in practical ways.

    To sum up, my message on Europe is threefold:

    – the Community is moving forward with full British commitment;

    – the Single Market is emphatically not a barrier to Indian exports;

    – the relationship between the Community and India is set to develop further, with Britain as one of India’s friends at court.

    The British Economy

    It is against the background of these world and EC developments that we have to deal with the more immediate economic concerns of our two countries. A few words about the British economy first.

    1992 cannot be claimed as one of our vintage years. Signs of economic recovery were slow to appear. Unemployment continued to rise. Company and individual confidence remained stubbornly low.

    But behind the scenes I believe the stage is set for a decisive move towards our consistent economic objective: sustainable non-inflationary growth. The necessary underlying conditions for this are now in place:

    – inflation – at 2.6 per cent – is at its lowest for six and a half years;

    – interest rates – following yesterday’s reduction – are now 6 per cent, the lowest figure for 15 years and the lowest in the European Community;

    – confidence is beginning to return to house-buyers, consumers and investors; and

    – our exchange rate is highly competitive.

    All this provides a tremendous opportunity for British industry. The government will be working closely with industry, especially manufacturing companies, to maximise investment in modern equipment and increase exports. We shall also be redoubling our efforts to free up our own markets, and reduce the burdens of government and bureaucracy on our own companies. The cornerstone of our policies remains the conviction that the creation of wealth is most effective when economic and commercial freedom are greatest.

    Indo-British Economic Links

    India and Britain are two of the largest dozen economies in the world. British investment in India is estimated at about 2 billion pounds, significantly larger than that of any other country. At least 250 British companies are well established here with an important stake in India’s economy. Many more have tie-ups involving the transfer of technology and know- how. The open British market will provide ample opportunities for India’s increasingly competitive exporters, many of them from Bombay and Western India.

    British development assistance to India is almost twice as much as to any other country in the world. We are proud of our aid programme here, which combines support for projects aimed at encouraging economic growth with help for the poorest. I was able to see something of our aid programme earlier today when I visited two slum improvement projects in Indore. The project is transforming life for the people, enhancing their environment, their health, their education, their opportunities to earn a living, and above all their dignity. We are proud of our partnership with the Indian authorities in making all this possible.

    So we are already doing much together. But this is only a beginning. New perspectives are opened by the dramatic change in India’s economic management and policies in the last eighteen months. Prime Minister Narasimha Rao and his Government have made Herculean efforts to stabilise the economy after the crisis of mid-1991. And having achieved this stabilisation, they are set to change the policies which, however justified at the outset, would never have built prosperity.

    We have admired and applauded the sweeping away of so many of the bureaucratic obstacles – the so-called licence raj – to normal business decision-making. We have welcomed the attack on high trade tariffs and even more direct barriers to trade, and the shift to genuine encouragement of foreign investment. We believe the policies of reducing wasteful and irrelevant government subsidies, cutting the budget deficit, and redirecting government spending to where it is most needed – the basic needs of the poorest, particularly in education and health – are absolutely right.

    We all know the entrepreneurial talents of the Indian people. We in Britain know them particularly well from the immense and valued contribution to our economic and commercial life made by so many entrepreneurs, large and small, of Indian origin. These talents can now be fully liberated in India too. India can look forward to taking its place before long among the fastest growing economies of Asia.

    The land of the tiger can become an economic tiger herself. She starts with great advantages: a huge domestic market, a reserve of trained and inexpensive manpower, a thriving private sector with an established entrepreneurial tradition and great natural talent, most of the necessary financial institutions already in place, and an exuberant democracy.

    But – there is always a but – the fruits of reform will only arrive if reform is continued and deepened. The effort to liberalise the economy and expose it to international competition must not only be maintained, but increased. The UK government has supported the process wholeheartedly through extra balance of payments support, through the positions we have taken in the international financial institutions, through the encouragement we have given to our companies to look at investing in India.

    What goes for Britain, goes for India – free markets and competition increase prosperity for everyone. Opening up trade, including in consumer goods. Liberalising further industrial and agricultural markets. Confining the public sector to its proper role and make public sector enterprises free to act and accountable for their actions. Making your labour laws encourage job creation and investment, rather than giving an illusion of job security to a privileged few. The Indian people will be the winners.

    Future Co-operation

    I said that we have been encouraging our companies to take a fresh look at India. It is significant that I have been accompanied on this visit by one of the most senior British industrial delegations ever to be in one place overseas at one time. These are senior businessmen, seriously interested in what they can do in and with India.

    Most of them have come with me to Bombay and are here this evening. They will tell you of the welcome message they received from Ministers and senior civil servants of the Indian government’s determination to maintain the reform programme. They are already making plans to carry this message back to their fellow British businessmen at home. They have agreed with their Indian counterparts on an Indo-British Partnership Initiative to promote trade and investment in both directions. As long as the reform programme continues – and the Government will need the continuing support of industry in carrying through difficult political decisions – I have no doubt that existing British investments in India will expand, and other British firms will set up here.

    During my visit we have taken some big steps forward. Here in Bombay, British Gas and the Gas Authority of India agreed this week to collaborate in bringing natural gas on-shore first to industry, and then to private consumers – a deal worth £100 million. And today I was delighted to hear that the Indian authorities intend to award to GEC Alsthom a contract to link the electricity networks of the West and South of India, this time worth £140 million. These and other deals which I know are in the pipeline will bring employment and new technology to India, not least to Bombay, and jobs and continuing export business to Britain. It is a partnership from which we both stand to benefit enormously.

    At my meeting with Indian business leaders yesterday, the first question I was asked was about the scope for privatisation in India and how Britain could help. I am sure that there is great scope for making more use of private sector skills in many parts of the Indian economy. I believe that this is one of the areas that the Indo-British Partnership Initiative should focus on. Britain has enormous experience of privatisation – we have carried out the most far-reaching privatisation programme in the world. Our experts – banks, accountants, consultants, civil servants – stand ready to advise and help as and when you in India decide to go down the same path.

    I know there has been disappointment in India at the apparently slow pace at which foreign investment has been increasing. But investment depends not only on the right policies and general goodwill. It depends on policy implementation at all levels, on confidence that reform is here to stay on the certainty that the era of suspicion of foreign companies is over. The stability and clarity of policy objectives over time is what counts in persuading foreign investors to take decisions.

    If that vision is there, Britain and India have so much to offer each other. I have already spoken in Delhi of the enormous general improvement in our bilateral relations. Much of the practical benefit for both of us from these excellent links will derive from the breadth and depth of our joint economic and commercial activities.

    Governments cannot of course make this happen. The theme of my speech has been that at global, regional and national level it is competition and free markets which bring prosperity. The whole point of free markets is that individual companies and people decide for themselves where to invest and with whom to do business. But governments must create the right environment for free markets to flourish. We are on the right course. Let us both stick to it, build on what has been achieved so far, and together help to create a better future for all our people.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Washington – 18 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Washington, held on Friday 18th December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what did you manage to achieve in the talks with President Bush this morning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think they were extremely productive talks, I think the most immediate outcome of them is I believe we have put the GATT talks in Geneva back on track, there was an agreement between President Bush, President Delors and myself that we should instruct the negotiators to go back to the talks, beginning again in early January, and seek to reach a substantive conclusion by mid-January, if that can be achieved it is very good news.

    QUESTION:

    President Delors was leaving no doubt that he thinks it is the Americans who should make concessions now in services in the non-agricultural area, is that your view too?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When you are in negotiations everyone makes concessions, that is the way one reaches agreement, I do not think one can be certain that it is the Europeans, the Cairns Group, the Americans, we are now into multilateral negotiations, not bilateral, and I think there may need to be movement on many sides. But the important thing is the sheer political will to make sure we reach a settlement, very important for the world economy, that political will has been put there today.

    QUESTION:

    How do you feel about the state of the special relationship after your telephone call with President-elect Clinton?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The special relationship, as you call it, is a very close relationship built on shared interests and it has been there for very many years, I do not have a shred of doubt that it will continue, not a shred of doubt.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that things will change in American foreign policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think one must let President-elect Clinton get his feet under the table but I think the preliminary judgment that one makes is that foreign policy will be remarkably similar in the future, there may be changes in domestic policy, I cannot speak for that, but as far as foreign policy objectives are concerned I think they will be strikingly similar.

    QUESTION:

    What about the UN Assembly decision today to step up the pressure on Yugoslavia, does that suggest that we are moving now towards tougher action?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope to have the opportunity of discussing that further over the weekend. I think many people will regard as unspeakable many of the things that have happened in Yugoslavia but what we must do is temper that instinctive reaction with practical measures that will assist and not damage the development of policy in Yugoslavia. I shall be discussing that over the weekend.

  • Mr Major’s Arrival Doorstep Interview in Montreal – 17 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s arrival doorstep interview in Montreal on Thursday 17th December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can you confirm that Britain would not use a veto in the Security Council against any No Fly Zone enforcement moves that were taken up?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will have the opportunity of discussing this over the next two days but I certainly do not expect that there would be a resolution that we would need to veto, I think that that is most unlikely.

    QUESTION:

    What form would the resolution take, do you think?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is still to be discussed and I hope to have the opportunity of discussing that over the weekend with President Bush.

    QUESTION:

    Are you certain yet how far you are prepared to go in committing any more military effort from Britain, whether it was to enforce the No Fly Zone or anything else?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Those are matters that we will discuss over the weekend, there are a number of complex matters that need to be brought together, I will discuss them over the weekend, I may have more to say by the end of the weekend.

    QUESTION:

    Do you accept what Mrs Thatcher is saying today that the West should accept some blame for what has happened in Yugoslavia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen what Lady Thatcher has said about that and I have no comment to make about it until I have seen the text.

    QUESTION:

    Do you regard the Bosnian question as top of the agenda with President Bush?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it must be top of many people’s agenda, there are other matters to discuss with President Bush, of course, the GATT Round is still very important and we have other matters to discuss as well. But I do not think anyone can have any doubt about the importance of what has been happening in Bosnia, many of the actions there are appalling, there is no doubt about that, but we need to look and see what can be done to bring a settlement but we need to do that in the context of maintaining the humanitarian relief that is now going through, were that to be broken there would be very serious consequences this winter.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think some of the voices on the American side are too gung-ho and do you think the British and American positions can be reconciled?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I would not describe them in that fashion and I have no doubt that we will reach an accommodation before the Security Council resolution comes round, I have no doubt at all about that, I think there is a common acknowledgement of the problem and a common will to deal with it.

    QUESTION:

    To those who say something must be done, what do you say at this stage?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We all want to do something and we are doing something and the question is what we can do that is most effective. We have to bear in mind that there are many people in very great difficulty in central Bosnia who actually need those humanitarian lines to be kept open, we have to bear in mind what nature of conflict this is and consider what actions we can most take that are most successful. I am not interested in gestures, I am interested in actions that will be successful, those are the matters we have to discuss.

    QUESTION:

    Could action be taken before Mr Clinton takes over in the White House?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I cannot speculate upon that.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think you can make significant progress on GATT both in Ottawa later tonight and in Washington in unblocking the problems that are still facing the GATT negotiators?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are still some problems in Geneva and I think it is very important that we make progress, we will certainly discuss with the United States but of course we are now into multilateral negotiations in Geneva, it is not just a question of the Community and the United States, there are much wider interests as well.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with M Jacques Delors – 12 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with M Jacques Delors held in Edinburgh on Saturday 12th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    May I begin by expressing my thanks to the people of Edinburgh for the very warm welcome we have had and the excellent way in which we have been cared for throughout the last two days.

    Let me say as President of the European Council I am very pleased to announce this evening a real breakthrough on a number of fronts at the Edinburgh meeting. The decisions that we have taken collectively today will enable the Community to go forward as Twelve, they open the way for new states to join, the Community has made important progress on subsidiarity and it has agreed a growth initiative that gives new confidence for investment and for jobs in every country throughout the European Community.

    I believe we faced at this summit more difficult interlocking problems than at any recent European Council but I believe we can claim that today we have solved the Rubik’s Cube that was laid before us.

    Let me turn firstly to Denmark. We have reached a legally binding decision which will enable Paul Schluter to go back to the Danish people and recommend a ‘Yes’ vote in a second referendum in the spring. Our decisions today deal with the genuine concerns expressed in Denmark but it does not require a change in the treaty and it does not require a fresh round of ratification in member states.

    Second, the economy. The growth initiative we have agreed today will boost confidence and promote economic recovery right the way across the Community, it includes a new European investment fund and a special loan facility to be provided by the European Investment Bank. In total these will be able to support new investment of up to 24 billion pounds.

    We are completing the single market on time, a magnificent achievement which provides Europe’s businessmen with new opportunities and Europe’s consumers with a new freedom of choice and we will continue to work for a GATT settlement which could add around 200 billion pounds to world income.

    Third, I want to say something about the budget. We have agreed on the financing of the Community to the end of this century. At a time of high budget deficits throughout Europe, we will keep the present limit on Community spending for a further two years, for two years there will be no increase, thereafter there will be a gradual and a limited increase, this will cover the Community’s own necessary expenditure, for example on research and development, and also support development and meet real needs in countries as different as Russia and Somalia, we have provided of course substantial help to those countries. It will also help the least developed regions of the Community, especially in building up their infrastructure.

    I have to say to you this was a very hard fought negotiation, while some pressed for much bigger increases others wanted less and there was a strong feeling that this was as much as the Community’s taxpayers could afford at a time when all member governments are having to restrain their spending at home.

    The UK abatement has been the subject of discussion over recent weeks, it did come under some attack during that period. I made it clear that the rebate was not a favour to Britain but a recognition that we would otherwise pay an unfairly large amount to the Community. Our Community partners have accepted this, the rebate is now renewed unchanged until the turn of the century and cannot of course be changed without Britain’s agreement.

    Fourthly, I would like to turn to enlargement. Here we have made a very substantial step forward. Up until now the formal position has been that enlargement negotiations could not begin until the Maastricht Treaty had been ratified, but all of us have agreed today that it is in the Community’s interests to get on with formal negotiation as soon as possible. There could l believe be no better sign of an outward looking Community and I believe this will be very welcome news indeed to Sweden, to Austria, to Finland and of course to Norway.

    The Commission have also put forward an important paper on the relationship between the Community and the countries of Eastern Europe. This paper, which is formally welcomed in the conclusions, calls for early trade liberalisation and full membership of the Community for the countries concerned as soon as they are ready for it.

    Fifthly, subsidiarity. Under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty we introduced a new and legally binding principle of subsidiarity. At Birmingham we agreed that the Council must come up with a clear implementation package at Edinburgh and we asked the Commission to produce examples of existing legislation which might be changed or withdrawn or propose legislation which should be scrapped. At Edinburgh we have met all these targets and I would particularly like to offer my congratulations to the President of the Commission for the work that he has done to ensure that those targets have been met.

    [Interruption from audience, Prime Minister responds]

    I would just say before we continue that as far as I recall it was the United Kingdom that were the first country anywhere in the world to introduce a full scale environment department over 20 years ago and we still I believe lead the way in many of our environmental practices.

    Let me return back to subsidiarity. We have agreed today guidelines based on the principle that the Community can only act where given the power to do so, national powers are the rule and the Community is the exception and we have also agreed new procedures for the Commission and the Council. And we now have a list of examples to show that this principle is having real effect.

    Each country produces its own examples of excessive interference. In Britain today’s subsidiarity agreement is good news for example for groups threatened by draft directives, groups as diverse as the Royal National Lifeboat Institute and the St John’s Ambulance Brigade. And again I express my thanks to President Delors on this matter.

    Sixthly, openness. In just 7 weeks since the Birmingham summit we have put together and agreed a package of measures to open up the Community to scrutiny by the people of Europe, we will open up debates on issues of general Community interest, we will ensure Community legislation is simpler and clearer and we will publish voting records whenever formal votes are taken in the Council.

    We have also agreed two important issues that have been outstanding for a number of Presidencies. On sites of institutions we have signed a decision this evening confirming the sites and working arrangements for all the main Community institutions – the Parliament, the Council, the Commission and some others – that is the heart of the problem that has blocked decisions on sites of institutions for years. We have agreed that decisions on new institutions, the European Central Bank and others will be pursued by the next Presidency.

    On Members of the European Parliament, we have agreed to increase the number of German Members of the European Parliament to reflect unification and at the same time to change the numbers for other countries, particularly bearing enlargement in mind, this will result in a European Parliament of manageable size after enlargement. Britain received six more Members of the European Parliament, as did France and Italy.

    Let me now turn to foreign policy issues. We have reached agreement on international aid for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The issue of recognition remains highly sensitive, but today we have agreed that we will not let it stand in the way of meeting the pressing need for large scale international assistance, that in itself we believe will help provide stability. We have also unreservedly backed the United Nations plan to put a battalion of soldiers to monitor the peace there, we would like to do the same in Kosovo. In Bosnia we have called, among other things, for the Security Council to examine systematically the operation of the No Fly Zone.

    Let me try and sum up. It has been hard pounding during this European Council but as we come to the end of this Council and near to the end of our Presidency I believe that both for Britain and for the Community much has been achieved. The single market, the largest free market in the world, is opening for business. There has been a long awaited breakthrough in the GATT talks whose completion could give a 200 billion dollar boost to world income. We have today agreed a growth initiative which could raise investment by up to 24 billion pounds, creating jobs and boosting confidence throughout the European Community. We have provided the way forward for Denmark to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. The Community’s finances have been put on a sound, a fair and an affordable basis for the rest of this century and the Community has today opened the door to a wider Europe in the future.

    I believe that as a result of these decisions the Edinburgh European Council will be remembered as the summit that put the Community back together and put us all back on the track for recovery.

    1. DELORS:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I would just like to add that contrary to the general atmosphere that has prevailed over the last few weeks, and contrary to what a lot of detractors have been saying, for these two days we have seen that the Community is in fine fettle, the Community has demonstrated that it is able to react in very difficult circumstances and the British Presidency has been able to untie the knot.

    The Prime Minister, the President of the Council, has gone through the main points, I shall just add three comments myself. First of all when it comes to the common policies and the financial resources the European Council agreed on 85 percent of the proposals made by the Commission so this means, as the President of the Council has said, that we can look ahead with optimism to the further development of the Community over the years to come.

    Secondly, on the question of the sites, that has been settled for the main sites, for the main institutions. It was not at all easy and it shows that there is still a family spirit in the Community which enabled us to clarify a situation which was very obscure and had been very contentious over the last few years.

    Thirdly, I would like to pay tribute to the European Parliament because for the first time in the history of the Community the European Council took up a proposal from the Parliament, that is the Degucht [phon] proposal, on the composition of the European Parliament, and took that as the basis for the proposal that was fully accepted. That shows the sound health of the third institution – the European Parliament.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC TV):

    Prime Minister, following the agreement with Denmark, could you confirm that the Third Reading debate in the Commons on the Bill to ratify the Maastricht Treaty will now be held after the second Danish referendum and is there a chance that Britain could ratify by July 1st, which is the date suggested by the European Parliament?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Danish referendum is now likely to be at the end of April or beginning of May. We can’t be precisely sure when it is and we will not be ready for Third Reading in the Commons until after that date so it will follow very hard on its heels. We will then ratify as speedily as possible but it needs to go through, of course, both the Commons and the Lords so I can’t be precise as to timing.

    QUESTION (Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph):

    On the Danish decision, can you explain in exactly what way these opt-outs for Denmark change that country’s legal obligations under the Treaty of Maastricht and if they don’t change Denmark’s legal obligations, how can Denmark go ahead and have a second referendum on an unchanged treaty?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it clarifies and interprets a great deal that was of concern to Denmark and I think you will need to look very carefully at what we have done. It is a mixture of a unilateral Declaration by Denmark, a Declaration by the Community as a whole, Conclusions by the Community as a whole and a Decision that has been reached on several key issues of importance to Denmark.

    The key points are these: it is a legally binding Decision covering Danish concerns. The Danes won’t have to join the single currency or the Western European Union, the defence grouping, and that deals with their defence point. It will enable the Danish Prime Minister to go for a second referendum and I strongly suspect as a result of that it will enable the Community to move forward as a Community of twelve.

    QUESTION (Greek TV):

    On the question of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the Conclusions there is a reference to the Lisbon Declaration.

    My first question is do you read this reference as a reaffirmation of the Lisbon Declaration. My second question is that if and when the question of recognition comes to the United Nations, will Britain support the Greek position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As the Foreign Ministers spent many hours discussing that, I think I will let the Foreign Secretary deal with it.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    There was no effort at the European Council at any level to change the Lisbon Conclusions. As regards the second question, it is not actual and no decisions so far as I know have been taken by any of the member states of the Community belonging to the Security Council, certainly not by Britain, as to what her attitude would be in the Security Council if we encountered such a proposition. It certainly was not discussed in any way today, the handling of the matter at the Security Council.

    QUESTION (Keith Rockwell):

    My question is for M. Delors. Excuse me for asking it in English, Sir. Given the wide gap between what you originally proposed in your Delors II package and what was finally agreed, are you not disappointed by the numbers that have been agreed on this budget proposal?

    1. DELORS:

    No. I have made a very rigorous calculation. I confirm that we have obtained 85% of the means we claimed for in the initial proposal.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    I wonder if in crude terms you could just tell us in pounds, shillings and pence as it were how much more this agreement is costing than what Britain was going for, the 1.25%, and who are the main beneficiaries and by how much?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Community are the main beneficiaries and I do not think I am going to break that down for you this evening, Adam. Without going into too many technicalities, the Presidency proposal was for an own-resources ceiling – I apologise for using the jargon – of 1.25% of GNP. The final outcome is 1.27% of GNP and we have been able to reallocate resources to many of the most important areas but the details of this will be made clear quite soon.

    I am not prepared immediately to put a pounds, shillings and pence price on it. It goes up to 1.27% in 1999. The increases are phased. There is no increase in 1993 or 1994. There is an increase of .01% of GNP in 1995 and the other increases are phased in steps until 1999 and it is in 1999 that it reaches 1.27% of GNP. That is the way in which it is phased.

    I should say that a great deal of those extra resources was generally agreed and I strongly support this. It was on projects that will actually be devoted to infra-structural development of one sort or another in the cohesion countries and of course in the structural funds beyond the cohesion countries.

    QUESTION (Robin Chrystal):

    Thousands of Scots marched today in Edinburgh for a Scottish Parliament. The majority of Scots voted for parties other than the Conservative Party at the election. What is in the document that you have agreed tonight for them? Why does subsidiarity have to stop at London?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Subsidiarity does not stop at London. I think you are confusing subsidiarity with devolution. If you consider the proposals that are actually coming out of the Westminster Parliament, far from subsidiarity, which means moving something from an international level to a national level, we have actually been moving decisions from a national level in the United Kingdom firstly to the Secretary of State for Scotland but more importantly than that, right down to individual schools, individual hospitals, individual people and that is the best sort of devolution, subsidiarity, call it what you will.

    QUESTION (John Palmer, The Guardian):

    You spoke earlier on about the hope now that the final British stages of ratification would follow close on the heels of the Danish referendum in April or May. Do I take it that you are more hopeful that can be completed before the end of June and can you tell us whether the Danish agreement is judiciable in the European Court?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No deadline was set on ratification by the British Parliament. That is a matter for the British Parliament and Members of Parliament. They are an independent breed, as you know, and we will take the Bill through the House as speedily as we can consistent with good examination. Unlike many countries throughout the Community, the British Parliament will wish to examine the Bill line-by-line and clause-by-clause; they will have the opportunity to do so. It is a constitutional Bill; they may take their time over it. That is understood in the Westminster Parliament and it is understood by our colleagues across the Community. We have said for many months that we will complete ratification during this session of Parliament but I have neither been asked nor have I given a specific timetable for the ratification. We will ratify as speedily as possible.

    It is not judiciable in the Court. It is a legally binding agreement amongst the governments concerning the Danes. It is not judiciable in the European Court.

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, could you give us your view on what the message of this summit is for the Euro-sceptics at Westminster?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think everyone will draw their own message. I have spoken of the message that I believe comes out of this summit. I think it is a message of hope and growth for economies across Europe. I think it is a message of openness for people who wish to join the Community. I think it is a message that shows very clearly that despite differing national interests, the Community is able to come together on important matters and give a clear-cut lead and I think there is a further message as well: the message is that dispute the internal matters that have concerned the Community, we have also been able to look outward to new entrants, outward to Somalia, outward to Eastern Europe and outward to other problems around the world in which the Community is now a major force.

    QUESTION (French Reporters):

    Prime Minister, President Francois Mitterrand said just a few minutes ago that on Thursday night Britain’s position regarding the Danish referendum was basically that if there was to be a “No” you could not go along with Europe. Is that still the British position now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are working for the Danish referendum to produce a “Yes” but the principle of the Community has always been that the Community marches along as twelve; that is what all of us wish to see. That is why we have gone to so much trouble over the last few weeks and the last few days to agree a framework across the Community that we believe will enable the Danes to meet their domestic concerns and successfully put a second referendum before the Danish people but it is the joint ambition across the Community for the Danes to win their referendum and for the Community to advance as twelve initially and after enlargement as thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, whatever it may be.

    QUESTION (George Brock, The Times):

    Prime Minister, if the decision on Denmark is not justiciable in the European Court, can you tell me if there are any other courts it is justiciable in and if there are not any that it is justiciable in, in what sense is it legally binding?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Legally it is binding between governments; it is a legally binding commitment entered into between one government and another.

    QUESTION (David Langston, Bureau of National Affairs in Washington):

    On the growth initiative, the figure of £24 billion that you mentioned does not equate with the 26, 18 plus 5 billion Ecu mentioned by Henning Christophersen here today. Could you spell out precisely the terms of difference between the Presidency counsel and Henning Christophersen’s meeting with the EC Finance Ministers.

    Secondly, a matter after your own heart, what can you tell us about the environment, which was a matter raised by some of the earlier interjectors?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the environment, I responded at the time to the environmental points that the objectors made.

    On the growth initiative, since I have one of the architects of the growth initiative here, I will invite him to do it. Chancellor!

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: [Norman Lamont]

    In the two Community policies that were particularly put forward, that is first of all the infrastructure facility within the European Investment Bank that is designed to finance infrastructure projects throughout the Community trans-European networks, it will be able to lend up to 75% of the value of projects instead of the normal 50% and that could involve extra investment of about £7 billion.

    The other main initiative that was put forward was a new European Investment Fund which will involve the private sector being involved as well. That will guarantee loans for investment, particularly loans to small and medium-sized business. There, the guarantees could be around £5 billion supporting additional projects of up to £17 billion or so.

  • PMQT – 26 November 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hendry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Hendry : Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in yesterday’s Financial Times on Derbyshire, which highlights the growth of jobs, prosperity and confidence in that county and beyond as a direct result of Toyota’s decision to manufacture cars in this country? Is that not the clearest possible evidence of the success of the Government’s strategy to make Britain the best place for international companies to invest? Is not that in the sharpest possible contrast to the position across the channel, where yesterday’s vote on GATT shows that the French claim to be good European citizens is a total sham?

    The Prime Minister : I greatly welcome the large investment by Toyota in Burnaston, together with that by other Japanese car manufacturers in recent years. Over that period their total planned investment in the United Kingdom is now nearly £2 billion and will create something in excess of 10,000 jobs. Clearly, that is extremely welcome news for this country. We are a very attractive area for foreign investment and I intend to keep it that way with low inflation, low taxation and no social charter.

    Mr. John Smith : In view of the evident public concern, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has had discussions with Her Majesty the Queen about the issues of taxation and the civil list payments?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say first to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I believe that affection and respect for the monarchy are very wide and very deep across all sections of the nation. On the particular point that he raises, the sovereign is not liable in law to pay tax on her personal income and does not at present do so. But Her Majesty, some months ago–before the summer recess–indicated to me that she wished consideration to be given to changing that arrangement. She asked me then to consider the basis on which she might voluntarily pay tax and further suggested that she might take responsibility for certain payments under the current civil list arrangements. The House will be keen to know that the Prince of Wales has made a similar request in regard to the Duchy of Cornwall. Discussions are continuing between the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and the royal household. When they are completed I shall make a full statement to the House.

    Mr. Smith : I am sure that the whole House will welcome the fact that consideration of those questions has been initiated. When does the Prime Minister expect to be able to make that full statement to the House, and what has the Queen suggested by way of changes in the civil list?

    The Prime Minister : I cannot be precise about when I can make a statement, but I would expect to be able to make one early in the new year. I also expect that the new arrangements will be able to come into effect for the next tax year. On the second part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question about the civil list, the Queen has asked me to consider arrangements under which she would reimburse the Consolidated Fund for the cost of annuities paid to all members of the royal family, except the Queen Mother and the Duke of Edinburgh.

    Mr. Clappison : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today’s encouraging news about American economic growth? Does he further agree that any consequent growth in world trade would be good for British trade, and that British industry is now well placed, with low inflation and low interest rates, to take advantage of world economic growth?

    The Prime Minister : I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. It is clearly good news to see that the American economy begins to grow again. That will be good news, not just for the United States, but for the rest of the world trading community. It means that British companies and British business have a great opportunity. We have low inflation, the lowest interest rates in the European Community, an extremely competitive exchange rate and a single market of 340 million people on our doorstep. Now that the prospect of a world trade war has been averted, the circumstances are coming together that provide better opportunities for British business than we have known for some time.

    Mr. Ashdown : What words has the Prime Minister to say to his fellow citizens of all political colours who, this afternoon, will discover that their councils are to sack teachers, close schools, shut down social services and still levy a council tax that is higher by far than anything that his Ministers promised during the last election?

    The Prime Minister : I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should wait for the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in a few moments’ time. The right hon. Gentleman’s allegations have a familiar ring. We seem to have heard them from him and his colleagues year after year, yet they have never yet become fact.

    Mr. Waller : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital for all European nations to support with one voice the general agreement on tariffs and trade? Does he further agree that if any one European nation were to jeopardise the implementation of that agreement, it would go against the interests not only of Britain and its European partners, but of international trade generally?

    The Prime Minister : I do agree with my hon. Friend on that. The agreement between the Community and the United States is a good one for the entire Community and the entire world trading community. It would, of course, be desirable for all member states to agree as speedily as possible. I know that there are difficulties in France, but I am sure that when France has examined every aspect of the deal, which has not yet been concluded and has to be concluded in Geneva, it, too, will realise that liberalisation of trade, services and manufactures is a very valuable prize for the French economy, as well as for the economies of every other industrial nation in the world.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Jones : How can the Prime Minister justify a system whereby unelected and unaccountable card-carrying Conservatives are appointed to run Wales by quango? Does not that drive a stake through the heart of the democratic process? When will such political nepotism stop?

    The Prime Minister : The heart of the political process of Wales is here in the House of Commons, with the answerability of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : May I put it to my right hon. Friend that both the question by the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend’s answer will be welcomed by people across the country and across the political spectrum? Would it be possible to suggest that senior members of the Privy Council should try to keep in contact with each other so that the country can respond to a lead from the royal household and from the leaders of the political parties?

    The Prime Minister : As I indicated to the House a few moments ago, I hope that we shall be able to conclude the arrangements before too long, and I hope then to be able to respond to the House. I think that the announcement that I have made today and the fuller announcement that I shall be able to make, I hope, early in the new year will be widely welcomed, both in the House and beyond it.

    Mr. Sheldon : While I welcome the announcement by the Prime Minister, will he now consider the setting up of a Select Committee on the civil list, as was done in 1972? It is about time, after 20 years, that we considered these matters dispassionately and carefully and came to a sensible conclusion.

    The Prime Minister : I know that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed that view, but I see no need for such a special Select Committee. The House approved the present civil list arrangements in 1990 to run for 10 years. The additional reimbursements which Her Majesty has asked me to consider will reduce the net cost to the Exchequer. I made the point that the arrangements run for a full 10 years. The actual increase is, of course, 6 per cent. because of assumed savings of 1.5 per cent. If there is a surplus at the end of the period, it will, of course, be taken into account in setting future civil list payments.

    Mr. Pickles : Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, following the autumn statement, the best way to give a boost to British industry is to start a programme of removing regulation from business? Does he further agree that business currently faces a triple assault from the town hall, Whitehall and Brussels?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The autumn statement has set out the right framework for growth and we need to be sure that that growth is not shackled by red tape, whether it comes from Whitehall, county hall, town hall or the European Community. I announced some time ago that I had asked my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to lead a new blitz on the regulatory sausage machine from wherever those regulations may come. We intend to cut all unnecessary rules and requirements that dull enterprise and innovation. I hope that before too long British business men will be able to warm their hands at a new bonfire of controls.

     

    Q3. Mr. Darling : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 November.

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

    Mr. Darling : How can the Prime Minister justify a situation in which nurses and teachers will this year get no wage increase and possibly lose their jobs, when, at the same time, the chairmen of the privatised water industries are digging their faces into the public trough yet again and are asking, and will get, increases of between 30 and 50 per cent? What does the Prime Minister intend to do about it?

    The Prime Minister : Against the advice of the Government yesterday- -if I may borrow the hon. Gentleman’s phrase–around 90 Labour Members dug their noses in the trough.

    Mr. Peter Robinson : Will the Prime Minister– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats.

    Mr. Peter Robinson : Will the Prime Minister recite for the House the moral, political and legal principles that distinguish the two cases of informers, the case of Brian Nelson and that of the informer known as “Michael”, who featured in a BBC television programme? Can the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the country why one of the two is at present serving a 10-year sentence and the other has left the country with his pockets stuffed with tens of thousands of pounds, with a new life made for him in some other area of the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister : I understand that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is investigating the programme to which the hon. Gentleman refers and that a report will be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The principle of employing participating informants to assist the police in the prevention of crime is well established in this country and in other democratic societies. As I believe the hon. Gentleman well understands, lives would be lost in Northern Ireland if the security forces were unable to receive information from informants. On his other point, there is no immunity from prosecution for informants who commit crime and the security forces are at all times subject to the rule of law.

     

    Q4. Ms. Hoey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 November.

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

    Ms. Hoey : The Prime Minister will know that nearly a quarter of a million people have signed a petition demanding that St. Thomas’s hospital should stay open on its present site. I have taken the liberty of putting in his name, because it is his local hospital. I wonder whether he will sign it and ensure that his local hospital, a hospital crucial to central London, is kept open.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Lady knows, it is widely accepted that substantial changes in London will be necessary to provide the right health care in future. However, there will be very full consultation before any decisions are taken on the Tomlinson report. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health has already visited St. Thomas’s to listen to views on the proposals. We shall consider them, examine the report and announce our conclusions in the new year.

     

    Q5. Lady Olga Maitland : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 November.

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

    Lady Olga Maitland : Does my right hon. Friend welcome the announcement yesterday by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that £1.5 billion-worth of Whitehall in-house functions will be market tested? Does he agree that the civil service must subject itself to the same disciplines of efficiency and value for money as the private sector?

    The Prime Minister : The initiative on market testing announced by my right hon. Friend yesterday is a giant step forward in bringing new thinking and new skills to the service of the public, and in getting work done that needs to be done better and with better value for money than ever before. I believe that we can be proud of the work done by many millions of public servants. That does not mean that it cannot be done better. That is what market testing is about, and it is why we support it and why the Opposition, who so often put the convenience of trade unions before that of the public, oppose it and will no doubt continue to oppose it.

  • PMQT – 24 November 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th November 1992. Tony Newton deputised for John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 November.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending a lunch– [Interruption.] given by the Lord Mayor and the Corporation of the City of London to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the accession to the throne of Her Majesty the Queen– [Interruption.] I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is also there.

    Mr. Amess : Basildon now being regarded as the barometer for national and international opinion, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a most favourable reading following the excellent autumn statement and the outcome of the settlement of the GATT round? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to appeal to politicians of all parties to talk up this wonderful country of ours rather than so treacherously talking it down, safe in the knowledge that he bats for Braintree as I bat for Basildon?

    Mr. Newton : I agree that, throughout the county that my hon. Friend and I have in common, the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the achievement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in relation to GATT have received a great welcome. I am tempted to extend my hon. Friend’s alliteration by saying that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is batting for Britain, but in fact he is batting for the whole world economic community and it is time he was given credit for his success.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is the Lord President aware that while the Prime Minister, desperate to have something to show for a lacklustre British presidency, has been scurrying around Europe talking up the prospects of a European growth package, in Brussels today the Chancellor has been steadily talking it down? Which of them speaks for the Government?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been doing no such thing. ECOFIN, in which he participated, had a very important discussion yesterday directed to the growing concern about the recession in the Community and considered how, individually and collectively, the countries of the Community could work to improve the prospects of recovery on lines very similar to those adopted for this country in the autumn statement.

    Mrs. Beckett : But are not the chaos and confusion arising because, even though 1,000 British jobs have been lost in every day of the United Kingdom presidency, the growth package, instead of being at the top of the presidency agenda where it should have been, is a half-hearted afterthought?

    Mr. Newton : If there is any chaos and confusion, it is with Her Majesty’s Opposition, who fought the election campaign on a programme which they have since acknowledged would have made the recession significantly worse, and who continue to advance measures- -a minimum wage, a payroll tax, the social charter–which would end all prospects of recovery.

    Mr. Bates : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the employees of Nissan UK, who have achieved the European car of the year award for the British-built Micra? Does he also agree that that further demonstrates a transformation of the British car industry from one renowned for poor quality and militancy under a Labour Government to one renowned for high quality and high achievement, of which we can all be proud, under this Government?

    Mr. Newton : Yes, indeed, and it is an achievement that I view with particular pleasure in view of the connection that I had with the economic problems in and around Sunderland some years ago. It is a major achievement for the new industries that we have brought to that area that Nissan has won the award for its car. It will form part of an achievement to which I look forward–that of this country becoming a net exporter of cars for the first time in many years.

     

    Q2. Mr. Raynsford : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 November.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Raynsford : Is the Minister aware of the report published yesterday by the Engineering Employers Federation, which highlights the urgent need for a strategy to regenerate Britain’s industrial and manufacturing base, and its conclusion that the Department of Trade and Industry lacks both the competence and the commitment to achieve that? If the President of the Board of Trade is not going to intervene before breakfast, before lunch and before tea, will the Leader of the House urge the Prime Minister to do so when he gets back from lunch?

    Mr. Newton : I have just referred to the achievements of an important part of British manufacturing industry, which is significantly more successful than it has been for many years and certainly more than it was under the administration of Opposition Members. If I ask anyone to read anything, I shall invite them to read the hon. Gentleman’s recent article, in this month’s Fabian Review about the Opposition, entitled, “Sleepwalking Into Oblivion?”

    Dr. Liam Fox : Does my right hon. Friend welcome reports that the Germans will, after all, play a full role in the European fighter aircraft project, with all the implications that that has for British jobs? Does not that and the GATT round negotiations imply a triumph for the Prime Minister’s quiet style of international diplomacy?

    Mr. Newton : I believe that it does and, referring back to a previous question, it shows the efforts made by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to advance the interests of British manufacturing industry.

     

    Q3. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 November.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Winnick : Does the Leader of the House accept that it shows no lack of respect to the Queen to suggest that the full cost of restoring Windsor castle should not fall entirely on public funds? Will that be considered by the Cabinet, and can the Leader of the House tell us whether the Cabinet have ruled out entirely the possibility of the Queen paying at least some income tax on her vast investment income?

    Mr. Newton : On the latter part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on 3 November. On the first part of the question, the position is well known. The fabric of Windsor castle is state property and has long been recognised as such. All that my right hon. Friend the Heritage Secretary said yesterday was in acknowledgement of that simple fact.

     

    Q4. Mr. Riddick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 November.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Riddick : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measures contained in the autumn statement to help industry, along with the recent reductions in interest rates, are beginning to provide that vital ingredient–confidence–among industrialists? Does he share my pleasure at the somewhat unexpected support for the autumn statement last Thursday evening–either out of incompetence, which seems likely, or out of conviction, which seems less likely–from Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition?

    Mr. Newton : I share my hon. Friend’s view of the autumn statement’s reception–not least its emphasis on capital programmes and the measures directed towards the housing market, to the release of local authority receipts, to capital allowances and to export credits. There is a long list of comments from people in British industry supporting those measures. I am bound to wonder whether the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench could produce a list of any length in support of what they have put forward.

     

    Sheffield

    Q5. Mr. Michie : To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Sheffield.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country– [Interruption.] Wait for it! He hopes to include Sheffield among them.

    Mr. Michie : I am sure that we can cope with that threat. Indeed, we look forward to the right hon. Gentleman’s visit. Is the Leader of the House aware that we hope that, during that visit, the Prime Minister will go around Sheffield’s housing stock in the public sector, which is in need of repair, rebuilding and refurbishment? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that it is to be hoped that, during that visit, the Prime Minister will display the same generosity in the provision of money to pay for repairing those houses as he has displayed towards Windsor castle, bearing in mind the fact that the tenants of those houses actually pay rent and taxes and that everyone’s home is their castle?

    Mr. Newton : I have already commented on the indirect thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s question. With regard to help for Sheffield, the Government provided £26 million of assistance for projects associated with the student games.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. David Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 November.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Evans : Will my right hon. Friend send a message to the Prime Minister saying that we on the Conservative Benches have total loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen– [Intervention.] and her Prime Minister?

    When will the Asylum Bill become law? Is my right hon. Friend aware that 28 people were arrested for having 70 false identity cards? We know that the lot opposite could not care less whether the number was 700, 7,000 or 70,000–“Let them all in,” they say–but the British people and I want to know when the Bill will be on the statute book.

    Mr. Newton : The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend’s supplementary question is that I shall take the greatest possible pleasure in communicating to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister my hon. Friend’s great declaration of loyalty and the support that it drew, I judged, from both sides of the House.

    The answer to the second part is that while I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact date, his question contained a message that I can also communicate to the Home Secretary, to urge him on in his efforts, and perhaps a message for Her Majesty’s Opposition in terms of the importance that is attached to the passage of that measure.

    Ms. Corston : Why has the Prime Minister, as President of the European Community, put Tory party unity before the needs of the EC in such a way that it has caused the French Trade Minister to describe the British presidency as the “most calamitous” that he had ever seen?

    Mr. Newton : It is clear that, as a result of his presidency of the European Community in the past few months, my right hon. Friend has played a crucial part in achieving the GATT settlement that is now in prospect.

     

    Q7. Sir Anthony Durant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 November.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Sir Anthony Durant : Does my right hon. Friend agree that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister deserves our support and congratulations for what he has done on the GATT round and that that has been an important achievement for most of the world, including the underdeveloped territories? Does he further agree that it would be wrong for a small group of French farmers to hold up that vital agreement?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend makes an important point. In congratulating my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, perhaps we should also recognise the contribution made by Mr. Andriessen, Mr. MacSharry from the Community, Mrs. Hills– [Interruption.] It is right that we should recognise that the part played by my right hon. Friend has contributed to the efforts of others in an important way, including those whom I mentioned and Mr. Madigan from the United States. We have ensured that that negotiation now has a chance to reach a conclusion. I share the hope that my hon. Friend has expressed that it will not be frustrated by people in whose overall interests that agreement is.

     

    Q8. Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 November.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Michael : Is the Lord President aware that the reply given to me yesterday shows that the level of aid to Somalia was less than during the years of bloody dictatorship under Siad Barre ? Will he undertake that the Government will at least restore total aid to the level of 1987 and meet Britain’s historical responsibility to the people of Somaliland in the north?

    Mr. Newton : I understand that the principal problem in Somalia is not the shortage of funds but the difficulty in distributing the aid that we are keen to provide. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the aid budget for next year was effectively projected in the autumn statement.