The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: GATT

  • PMQT – 12 November 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Garrett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Garrett : Today’s unemployment figures confirm that Britain is in the longest recession since the 1930s and is still heading for the deepest recession since the 1930s. How would the Prime Minister describe his stewardship of the economy, when to most people it has been incompetent and callous?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know the difficulties that are faced not only here but elsewhere across Europe and beyond Europe. What the hon. Gentleman characteristically forgot to mention is that, this morning, notwithstanding the fact that every single figure in the unemployment increase is a personal tragedy, that increase is smaller than the average monthly increase has been for some considerable time. I hope that that will prove to be a welcome trend. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out some measures later on today of which I think the hon. Gentleman may approve.

     

    Q2. Mr. Devlin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Devlin : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since his recent chat with Mr. Delors, it was reported in yesterday’s American press that the French Government are hinting that a compromise on GATT may now be only just around the corner? I do not know what my right hon. Friend said to Mr. Delors when he popped into Downing street recently, but, for the sake of all those manufacturing industries in the north of England, will he keep on saying it please?

    The Prime Minister : I shall certainly keep pressing the case for an early conclusion to the GATT round. I certainly welcome the assurance that the President of the Commission gave me last Friday about an early resumption of talks with the United States. I am delighted that that has subsequently been endorsed by the full Commission and equally pleased that Mr. MacSharry will be rejoining the talks. We will certainly continue to press for a very early conclusion. I believe that the Commission hopes to regroup on 20 November. It would be very agreeable if it were able to report a success with the United States so that the matter could then go to Geneva for final settlement.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister tell us when he first knew that the Government guidelines on the export of arms-related machinery to Iraq were being breached?

    The Prime Minister : Let me try, for the sake of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members of the House, to disentangle the true issues from some of the misunderstandings and wilder allegations of recent days. Let me make the first and fundamental point that the issues raised by the Matrix Churchill case have been referred to an independent judicial tribunal. All the papers that the inquiry seeks will be available to it. All Ministers and officials who are asked to give evidence to that inquiry will be required to do so and the inquiry will be free to publish whatever material it wishes.

    The second point relevant to the whole House, I think, is that every relevant aspect of the conduct of all Ministers will be open to scrutiny by the inquiry and I thoroughly welcome that. I will, if I may, clear a third point and that is that Ministers, in claiming public interest immunity, were doing what they were obliged to do by law. They signed such documents only as advised by counsel and the Attorney-General. It follows that they were not concealing information from the court. On the contrary, they were making available the relevant documents to the court. It was then for the judge to decide which of the documents should be protected by public interest immunity and which should not. I hope that that will clarify matters.

    Mr. John Smith : Instead of answering a clear and direct question, the Prime Minister has issued a prepared statement. I remind him that this question goes right to the heart of the credibility of his Government. I ask him it again. When did he first know that the guidelines on arms- related exports to Iraq were being breached ; what date, please?

    The Prime Minister : It is not clear at all that they were breached. The first allegations that they might have been breached were made by The Sunday Times in late 1990. Following that article, I, together with the Cabinet Secretary, had a meeting with Mr. Alan Clark. At that meeting he told me that it was totally false to suggest that he was advising the companies concerned on how to prepare licence applications in such a way as to conceal military use. Mr. Clark took the same position in the written witness statement which he provided to the court. It was not until his testimony in the case, therefore, that I had any reason to believe that what he had told me and what was in the written witness statement might not correspond with his oral evidence.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister understand that if he thinks that the guidelines were not breached, he must be about the only person in this country who has arrived at that conclusion? Will the Prime Minister tell us whether, when he gave replies, in particular a reply to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on the Liberal Benches on a previous occasion about exports to Iran being conducted in the light of the guidelines, that was the whole truth as he knew it at that time?

    The Prime Minister : Every parliamentary answer that I have given or letter that I have dispatched has been based on the position as I understood it to be. I am utterly confident that that will be clear in Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry.

    Mr. Duncan-Smith : Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is quite appalling for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to go on the media and accuse my right hon. Friends of dishonourable conduct before– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat unless he questions correctly. The Prime Minister has responsibility only for Government activities. Will the hon. Gentleman frame his question correctly or not?

    Mr. Duncan-Smith : Yes, indeed, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that all that he has said so far this week indicates that there will be a complete inquiry and that all will be revealed, honourable conduct included?

    The Prime Minister : The House has that complete assurance. Indeed, if I had wished there not to be a complete inquiry and hon. Members to be open to questions, I might have followed the proposal of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and had an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, which would have made the matter sub judice in the House.

    Mr. Ashdown : Is it not the case that the Prime Minister and the Government knew as early as July–that is, six months before the Prime Minister’s letter to me–that the machine tools being exported to Iraq by Matrix Churchill and other companies were beyond peradventure being used to make munitions for the Iraqi army?

    The Prime Minister : I have replied to the right hon. Gentleman’s letter and the many media appearances that he has made. As he will see when he receives my letter, his second letter shows that he has completely misunderstood the position. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked a question ; he might have the courtesy to listen to the answer. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my letter of 6 December and wrongly claimed that I misled him by concealing knowledge of the Matrix Churchill case when I explained the Government’s policy on export licences for Iraq. That is not the case. If the right hon. Gentleman reads my letter, he will see that I refer in the second paragraph to an investigation by Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise which was into Matrix Churchill. I made it clear that I could not comment in case I prejudiced any proceedings. That is the rational explanation for which the right hon. Gentleman asked. He failed to understand my correspondence.

    Mr. Anthony Coombs : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest figures, for October, for manufactured car exports show an increase of no less than 37 per cent. on last year? Is he also aware that the Textile Alliance anticipates that the exports of the textile industry from the United Kingdom, at £4.8 billion, will be a record for this year? Does he agree that a newly competitive exchange rate will give British exporters the opportunity to improve even on that excellent performance?

    The Prime Minister : Yes. That is certainly the case, and there is no doubt that car production rose very dramatically in September, and the figures for October, which were released today, suggest that production is holding up. I have no doubt that our present competitive exchange rate will improve that position.

     

    Q3. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Cryer : Instead of passing the buck continually to a vague and unsatisfactory inquiry, will the Prime Minister clean out the cesspit of the present Government by sacking all those Ministers who conspired to pervert the course of justice in the Matrix Churchill case in order to cover up a Government policy of encouraging the sale to Iraq of machinery which they knew was to be used for the manufacture of munitions and nuclear weapons? Or would that involve sacking himself?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is one of the foremost conspiracy theorists in the House and an acknowledged expert at muckraking. But not even he can call an independent judicial inquiry anything other than an impartial, clear-cut and independent inquiry. That is what we have ordered and that is what we shall have.

    Mr. Tredinnick : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great scandal that some local authorities are obstructing schools that want to become grant-maintained? Will he join me in welcoming the statement by the Secretary of State for Education that the law will be changed to make that obstruction impossible? Does he agree that most of that obstruction has come from Labour-controlled local authorities?

    The Prime Minister : I think that that is a matter of fact and not conjecture. I very much welcome the action taken by my right hon. Friend in the Education Bill to ensure that parents have a proper choice. It is intolerable that some local education authorities should deliberately scare parents by claiming, entirely falsely, that by voting for grant-maintained status, they will damage their children’s education. It is equally unacceptable that LEAs, as teachers’ employers, should put pressure on staff to resist the ballots of parents.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

    Mrs. Mahon : Does the Prime Minister intend to retain the nurses’ pay review body? If so, does he agree that, if that body is to have any relevance to the pay that nurses actually receive, the Government must accept its recommendations and fund them?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady will be able to hear my right hon. Friend’s statement very shortly.

    Mrs. Peacock : Is my right hon. Friend aware that a private sector proposal to work the Markham Main colliery has been with British Coal for almost three weeks without any acknowledgement? Does he agree that that may suggest that British Coal does not want competition?

    The Prime Minister : I shall pass my hon. Friend’s remarks to the President of the Board of Trade. I have no knowledge of that particular proposal, but I have no doubt that it will be brought to British Coal’s notice very speedily.

     

    Q5. Mr. Don Foster : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 November.

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

    Mr. Foster : Does the Prime Minister agree with those Conservative councillors in Bath who this week supported a motion expressing dismay at the deterioration of the national health service in Bath? Or does he support the comments of the Secretary of State who, on a recent visit, said of the closure of wards at the district hospital, of the loss of beds for the elderly mentally infirm and of the increased waiting lists for elective surgery that she thought they were “mere teething problems”?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman is just a little selective. He makes no mention of the fact that health service expenditure is up by more than 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979 or that, for every pound spent in 1979, nearly £4.50 will be spent this year. Neither did he mention the fact that the national health service will spend nearly £2,500 a year for every family of four in this country. No other Government would have provided those resources.

    Mr. Ottaway : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sunday trading at Tesco superstore in Purley has resulted in an increased turnover, more jobs and a surplus of staff who want to work on a Sunday, and it is very popular with my constituents? Will he introduce legislation that clarifies that area of the law before an unacceptable compromise is introduced to the House in January?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we have a manifesto commitment to bring forward proposals for reform once the European Court of Justice has settled the compatibility of the current law with the free trade provisions of the treaty of Rome. We expect that judgment in the Court in November and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will then make an announcement to the House about legislation.

  • PMQT – 27 October 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Watson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Mr. Watson : As the Prime Minister bobbles about helplessly in a sea of chaos, has he noticed the latest damning evidence of economic decline in today’s Confederation of British Industry review, yet one of last week’s U- turns–just one of them–promised economic growth? Before he finally slips beneath the surface, will the Prime Minister tell us what, if anything, he will do to prevent recession from turning into slump?

    The Prime Minister : In the time that he spent preparing that question, the hon. Gentleman clearly did not read all of the CBI quarterly survey. If he had done, he would have seen output expectations up on September, export optimism up on July, the domestic prices balance at an all-time low and, for the first time ever, the balance of firms reporting unit costs actually being reduced. As to improving economic circumstances, the hon. Gentleman should note what has been done. Interest rates have been cut 11 times in two years. They are the lowest interest rates in Europe, and British firms also face the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe.

    Mr. William Powell : My right hon. Friend will be aware of how welcome the declaration of the London summit on the conference on Yugoslavia was in relation to the war crimes that are taking place in Yugoslavia and also the subsequent action taking place at the United Nations. Unfortunately, of course, there is no permanent machinery for trying war crimes, although the General Assembly of the United Nations has been discussing such permanent machinery. Will my right hon. Friend encourage his colleagues in the Government to take a more constructive approach towards establishing such permanent machinery?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly content to give my hon. Friend that assurance. This was a matter that was raised at the London summit on Yugoslavia some time ago, and as a result of that, the whole matter is being examined in the United Nations.

    Mr. John Smith : Could the Prime Minister explain how he takes comfort from a CBI survey which predicts that jobs will be down, output will be down, orders will be down, investment will be down and confidence will be down? Will he answer the question that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson)? What action will he take to stop a slump?

    The Prime Minister : For the second successive Question Time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to listen to an answer already given. If he had listened more carefully he would have heard what I said about output expectations, export optimism, the domestic prices balance and the balance of firms reporting unit costs actually falling. He would also know that manufacturing output has risen in each of the first two quarters, that car production was up sharply in September, and that retail sales have been up in both the second and third quarters.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that the complacency of that answer will shock the public? Does he not realise that the British public are now sick and tired of failed economic policies as well as bogus economic promises of recovery which are never ever fulfilled?

    The Prime Minister : Throughout the last three years the economic policy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been the same as ours, but 1 per cent. less off interest rates. Exactly the same. His commitment to the central part of our economic policy was total and frequently stated. He always wanted lower interest rates. Will he now bear it in mind that we have the lowest interest rates in the European Economic Community–lower than we have had for a long time–and that there is no economic policy whatever from the Opposition?

    Sir James Kilfedder : May I, as one who voted against the Government in the crucial Division last week on the pit closures and was opposed by a Tory candidate in the general election, from my critical position of independence congratulate the Prime Minister on the brave determination that he has shown–history will commend him for it–to put the United Kingdom at the heart of Europe? Will he take the opportunity as often as possible to spell out in simple terms to the people of this country the consequences, particularly for jobs, if Britain is left on the sidelines of Europe?

    The Prime Minister : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has had to say. Let me say this on the European Community and the Government’s policy. I believe that we have had three historic mistakes over the last 30 years in European policy. [Interruption.] The first was when we failed to join the Community at the outset. The second was when twice other countries refused to accept Britain into the European Community. They were mistakes of great damage, to not just this country but the whole of the European Community. Today, with the possibility of enlargement through the changing policies in Europe, we have more of a chance than ever we have had before of building a European Community in the image that we in this country wish to see. It would be folly at this stage to throw that away by isolating ourselves in the Community and by ending our influence. That is the way that the sort of Community we do not wish to see–not the sort of Community that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been fighting for for some years–comes about.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister not realise that the terrible damage done to his credibility and that of his Government by his foolish manoeuvrings over the last week have undermined the case for Europe, for which there is a majority in the House, as well as delaying the chance of recovery, for which there is such desperate need in the nation?

    The Prime Minister : What undermines the case for Europe is the manoeuvrings of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) as well as the manoeuvrings of the right hon. Gentleman himself.

    Mr. Roger Evans : Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that legislation will be introduced at an early date to strengthen the law against the curse of new-age travellers?

    The Prime Minister : There seems to be some competition for legislation to be introduced in the House. We are examining the particular difficulties created by new-age travellers, and I hope that at the end of that examination we will be able to produce legislation to protect those who suffer from their activities.

     

    Q2. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Mr. Illsley : The Prime Minister will recall that last Wednesday members of his Government said that there would be a meaningful, genuine, statutory 90-day review of the 10 collieries earmarked for closure. Bearing in mind the fact that there is no such thing as a statutory 90-day review, and that most of those collieries are now closed, does the Prime Minister accept that the House was apparently misled?

    The Prime Minister : I shall reiterate to the hon. Gentleman what I said myself on the subject of the 10 pits. I made it perfectly clear then that the 10 pits that have no economic future will go through the full statutory review procedure. I made it equally clear that the Government would co-operate with the inquiry by the Trade and Industry Select Committee and that the President of the Board of Trade will give evidence if that is required.

    Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will never allow the EC to impose on us by the back door the social chapter that the Labour party would impose on us by the front door? Will he also confirm that he will fight for British interests and jobs in Euope, as he has always done?

    The Prime Minister : I can most certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Before I went to the negotiations on the Maastricht treaty I indicated to the House that I would not come back having accepted a single currency being imposed on this House, and equally, that I would not accept the social chapter. I honoured both of those commitments and I propose to keep to them.

     

    Q3. Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Mr. Barnes : A sales manager of British Coal, Alan Aitken, has told customers that supplies will be supplemented by imports during the period of the pit closures. This is a disgrace. How much will be added to these imports by the agreement that the Prime Minister made with the Colombian authorities about the importation from that country of coal that is produced with the help of child labour?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is clearly reading the wrong articles, for what he has had to say is rubbish. I made no offer to stop British Coal’s anti-dumping complaint. Nor did I in any way reach the sort of agreement that the hon. Gentleman suggests with the Colombian authorities–not at any stage. Since I spend a lot of my time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, seeking an agreement on GATT, it is hardly likely that I would support dumping.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Angela Knight : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Mrs. Knight : Does my right hon. Friend agree that not even the French farmers would benefit from a world trade war? Will he confirm that he will continue to pursue an early conclusion of the GATT round, which will be good for developing countries, good for Britain–including companies in my constituency of Erewash–and even good for France?

    The Prime Minister : I can most certainly confirm that. The reality is that everybody would lose out from a trade war, including France and everybody who lives in France. In the last few days I have been in touch with the Americans and with leaders throughout the European Community to urge an early resumption of talks between the Community and the United States, both on a GATT agreement and on ending the dispute about oil seeds. I am glad to say that the two sides are in touch again and the United States is holding off from taking trade retaliation. We must seek an agreement both to end the dispute over oil seeds and a comprehensive agreement on the Uruguay round as speedily as possible. On the substantive point of my hon. Friend’s question about benefits, it would produce £120 billion worth of extra world output were we to have a successful GATT outcome.

    Mr. Cunliffe : Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that he may be out next week on 90 days’ notice, without statutory review? Will he bear with me while I relate to him the humiliating experience, which is causing great distress, that miners at Parkside colliery suffered on Friday? They were told to report to the pit every day for 90 days but that they were forbidden to go down the mine. Will the Prime Minister condemn this unspeakable behaviour and have words about it with the chairman of British Coal?

    The Prime Minister : I shall examine the case that the hon. Gentleman sets out and I shall see for myself what the facts are.

     

    Q5. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) should not behave in that way.

    Mr. Amess : Is my right hon. Friend aware that mortgage interest rates for first-time buyers are now at their lowest level for 25 years? Does he agree that that will have the effect of putting more money in people’s pockets so that they can spend it on goods in the high street and thereby help our economic recovery? Does he further agree that that is very good news for home buyers throughout the country and particularly for my constituents in Basildon?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has the most famous constituents in the western world and I can confirm that the very substantial reductions in mortgage rates will help them a great deal. It will also make a significant difference to the amount of money available for high street purchases, though of course the central point is that each 1 per cent. off interest rates is worth £1 billion a year to industry, and that is vital for investment, for future prosperity and for jobs.

    Dr. Kim Howells : Can the Prime Minister confirm that doubts about the future of the hugely important Al Yamamah defence deal, which the British Government have signed with the Saudis, increase day by day and parallel the decline in the influence of his predecessor, Baroness Thatcher? Will he confirm that interest in that deal increases as it looks as though his predecessor may be making a comeback, along with that grease-palming son of hers [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. [Interruption.] We want a question from the hon. Member.

    Dr. Howells : That was my question, Madam Speaker.

    The Prime Minister : I refute the hon. Gentleman’s distasteful remarks about my noble Friend. As for the Al Yamamah contract, there is no doubt that the Saudi commitment to Al Yamamah remains as strong as it has been for many years. That has been stressed to the Secretary of State for Defence and directly to me by the king.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on Economic Summit and CSCE – 13 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement in the House of Commons on the Economic Summit and Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) made on the 13th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the economic summit in Munich and the summit of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe in Helsinki last week. I represented the United Kingdom at the economic summit, with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Foreign Secretary also attended the Helsinki summit.

    The economic summit met against the background of a world economy that is still sluggish. The difficulty of achieving non-inflationary growth was uppermost in our discussions. We would all like to see faster growth. Recovery has been slower in coming than anyone anticipated but the conclusions, which are in the Library of the House, record both our desire for stronger sustainable growth and our view that it can be achieved only through sound monetary and fiscal policies. Unless we get inflation down and keep it down there will be no lasting growth.

    The single biggest contribution that can be made to recovery throughout the world is a GATT settlement. A settlement would give a sharp non-inflationary boost to the world economy. The OECD has concluded that it would be equivalent to a $195 billion gain in annual incomes. More than $90 billion of that would accrue to developing and former communist countries. It would boost the economic transformation of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, encourage developing countries to persevere with their reforms, and check protectionism in world trade.

    A GATT settlement is essential, and I make no apology for having put it high on the agenda at Munich and insisting that it was discussed in detail. In the light of this year’s reform of the common agricultural policy, the remaining gap between the European Community and the United States on the crucial agricultural issues is a small one. I believe that it can be bridged and the communique contains a firm commitment to a result this year.

    At the economic summit last year I pledged to attend the Rio conference and urged others to do the same. On my return, I suggested an eight-point follow-up action plan. That plan, which is set out in the conclusions, was accepted by the G7.

    We also had a meeting with President Yeltsin, days after Russia had reached an agreement with the International Monetary Fund. The imminence of the Munich meeting undoubtedly helped to clinch that agreement. It opens the way for the IMF to release the first $1 billion credit tranche. That, in turn, opens the way to a debt-rescheduling agreement. I was able to announce that the United Kingdom is ready to make available $500 million of export credit cover for the former Soviet Union.

    Russia faces massive difficulties. Inflation is running at well over 150 per cent., the fiscal deficit is rising and will be well over 10 per cent. Of GDP for the rest of this year, and the pace of reform has slowed down in several areas. Translating reforms on paper into reforms in operation is proving difficult. President Yeltsin assured us of his determination to put renewed impetus behind the reform programme. With the IMF programme in place it will be easier to monitor progress and to propose remedies, but none of us should underestimate the huge nature of his task : it is literally unparalleled and we all have a stake in his success. The United Kingdom has urged for some time that the Munich summit should take an initiative on the safety of nuclear power stations in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Members of the Community pledged themselves at Lisbon to provide significant resources. The G7 agreed on an action programme and to create a fund to supplement existing bilateral efforts to ensure a co-ordinated and targeted approach.

    The political declaration adopted at Munich underlines, in respect of the former Soviet Union, the general theme of help for self-help. It calls for a resolution of the northern territories dispute. The declaration also calls for the indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty at the 1995 extension conference and underlines the need, in the face of the growing demands on them, to strengthen both the United Nations and the CSCE.

    The CSCE played a crucial role in the 1970s, setting human rights standards which the communist world could not ignore. The role of the CSCE in monitoring human rights, especially minority rights, remains. The CSCE must also take on new roles as well. At last week’s meeting we agreed a number of new roles for the CSCE covering : the earlier warning of political conflicts ; the need for a new mechanism to improve the peaceful settlement of disputes; the establishment of a high commissioner for national minorities ; and the CSCE role in peacekeeping.

    No mechanisms can provide solutions if people are not willing to use them. It will take more than one or two conferences to resolve many of the ethnic conflicts that were frozen under communist rule and which are now coming aggressively to life again. But progress was made at that meeting, for example, on the issue of troop withdrawal from the Baltic states and on the handling of Yugoslavia. The overall priority in Yugoslavia is to try to get the parties to negotiate. In that task, Lord Carrington’s efforts are of crucial importance, and were underlined and endorsed at the Helsinki meeting. In the short term, our priority is the provision of humanitarian relief to Sarajevo and beyond. Britain already has 300 medical personnel as part of the UN force in Croatia. We have so far flown 28 humanitarian flights to Sarajevo. HMS Avenger will take part in an operation to monitor sanctions, jointly agreed at Helsinki by NATO and the Western European Union. The feasibility of establishing a land corridor to Sarajevo under UN auspices is being explored. If such an operation were feasible, Britain would be prepared to consider providing air cover for it. We would not supply ground troops.

    Everyone who has seen the recent news reports has been shocked and moved by the suffering children in Sarajevo. At the end of last week, we told the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that we stood ready to evacuate children from Sarajevo to the United Kingdom for medical treatment, or to send medical teams to Yugoslavia to provide treatment on the spot.

    If it is possible to treat the children on the spot, near to their families, with people around them who speak their language and in relatively familiar surroundings, that is obviously the best way. We have told the International Red Cross that we are willing to fly out medical personnel at very short notice if needed. I hope to meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in London later this week to see what further action is needed.

  • PMQT – 9 July 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th July 1992. Tony Newton deputised for John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Helen Jackson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    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 on his way to Helsinki to attend a conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

    Mrs. Jackson : Will the Leader of the House be so kind as to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that the prompt and efficient administration of public money is his responsibility and therefore, that it is his and his Government’s responsibility that many of my constituents are waiting more than six months to have their disability living allowance claims processed? Will he ask the Prime Minister to join me in commiserating with Mr. Michael Bichard who has had no fewer than 26 parliamentary questions and hundreds of letters of complaint referred to him from hon. Members?

    Mr. Newton : I am not sure that I shall invite my right hon. Friend to agree with all that, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree about the duty that we all have to ensure the proper administration of public money, about the satisfaction, which the hon. Lady has not expressed, in the level of demand for the extremely successful new disability benefits, and about the Government’s determination to ensure that those benefits are effectively delivered.

     

    Q2. Sir John Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Sir John Hannam : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tremendous success of the health service reforms, especially in my part of Devon where the general practitioner fund holdings and the trusts are working for the benefit of staff and patients? Will he welcome the changed attitude of the British Medical Association, which shows the popularity and success of the reforms?

    Mr. Newton : Yes, I very much welcome that. It reflects the fact that practical experience throughout the country is demonstrating the benefits of those reforms. There is clearly also a wide welcome for the announcement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, which will build further on their success.

    Dr. John Cunningham : What reasons does the Leader of the House give for the Prime Minister’s failure to achieve his objectives at the economic summit in Munich?

    Mr. Newton : An economic summit, whether it takes place in Munich or anywhere else, is a gathering of people designed to achieve agreement on the pursuit of common objectives. No one member of such a gathering can force the others to agree. It is clear, however, that useful progress was made at Munich on key objectives relating both to western relations with Russia and to advancing the objectives of the GATT round. Progress was also made in a number of other ways.

    Dr. Cunningham : Is it not clear that no amount of vacuous communiques can disguise the fact that, for the second year running, Britain is bottom of the G7 league in relation to growth, investment and job creation? As even Lady Thatcher is now warning of economic catastrophe in Britain, is it not time for new economic and industrial policies for our country? Will the Government act now or will they simply continue to wring their hands and do nothing?

    Mr. Newton : It is clear that the action taken by the Government in recent months is creating a secure foundation for the country to emerge from the recession in the latter part of this year. If the hon. Gentleman is in a quoting frame of mind, he may wish to know that in a press release issued only three or four days ago the Institute of Directors said that half the directors questioned in June were more optimistic. That is the highest level of sustained optimism since August 1988.

    Dr. Cunningham : Twelve months ago, the Prime Minister claimed a triumph for the economic summit in London, and the Government did nothing. Will they do nothing again about the appalling misery that they are creating in this country?

    Mr. Newton : The Government will continue with the sustained application of policies which are producing the conditions for recovery, and doing so successfully.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hague : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hague : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this week’s announcement of an order for the fourth Trident submarine? Does he agree that the three best recent additions to the future security of the nation are the ordering of the submarine, the re-election of a Government who had the consistency and good sense to proceed with the order, and the defeat of Opposition parties whose recommendations vary from scrapping this important deterrent altogether to sending submarines out to sea with no weapons on board?

    Mr. Newton : In a word, I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said.

    Ms. Lynne : Can the Leader of the House explain how we can take the proposals on health promotion seriously when the Government are presiding over the collapse of national health service dentistry?

    Mr. Newton : It is absurd to suggest that the Government are presiding over the collapse, as the hon. Lady puts it, of NHS dentistry, given the increases in NHS treatment, the number of dentists and their remuneration over the past few years.

     

    Q4. Mr. Haselhurst : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Haselhurst : In the light of the targets set in the Government’s White Paper, published yesterday, will the Government consider removing tobacco products from the calculation of the retail prices index? If we believe that price is the main deterrent to smokers, is it not ridiculous that the Chancellor should feel any inhibition about increasing duty on tobacco products because of the effect that that would have on the cost of living and on benefits related to it?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend will know that an advisory committee looks carefully and independently at the proper make-up of the RPI. I would not wish to dictate to that committee how it should do its work. I should point out, however, referring to the figures given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, that the increases in tobacco prices in recent years do not suggest that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been suffering from any inhibition in that respect.

     

    Q5. Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Barnes : At 4 o’clock this afternoon in the Jubilee Room the Spastics Society will launch a report on the problems of disabled people in the 1992 general election. Is the Leader of the House aware that many disabled people could not gain access to polling stations in the election and also had problems with the postal voting system? Will he ensure that the report, entitled “Polls Apart”, is studied at the highest level and that action is taken to ensure that everyone, able-bodied or disabled, who is entitled to exercise the franchise, is given access to the procedure?

    Mr. Newton : As a former Minister for disabled people myself, I would not wish to do anything with such a report other than to examine it carefully and draw it to the attention of those concerned, returning officers and others. The hon. Gentleman’s concern is legitimate.

     

    Q6. Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell : Now that Germany has made it clear that it intends to continue for a long period in the maintenance of economic policies which are driving the rest of Europe from recession into slump, so as to re-equip its eastern provinces, is it not more than ever necessary for British Ministers to show the same resolution in supporting British industry? As this country has determined its own money supply for several centuries, why do Ministers suddenly find that they can no longer do that without having their hands held by a group of German bank clerks? Has not the time now come for us to leave the exchange rate mechanism, at least until such time as German interest rates are reduced to a level compatible with the needs of the whole of the rest of Europe?

    Mr. Newton : The British Government–with support from both sides of the House, in my recollection–accepted the disciplines of the ERM as the essential basis for a British policy designed to bring down inflation and to create the conditions for a sound economy. I see no basis for departing from that.

     

    Q7. Ms. Primarolo : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Ms. Primarolo : Will the Leader of the House explain why, under the citizens charter, someone whose train is late is entitled to claim compensation, but when the Government fail to ensure that people’s applications for disability allowances are speedily processed, those people are not entitled to claim compensation against the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Prime Minister that proposals for such compensation should be produced as a matter of urgency, to ensure the efficiency of government?

    Mr. Newton : As I believe the hon. Lady knows, in certain fairly limited circumstances compensation may be payable for a failure of the Department–for negligence, perhaps. The key is to ensure, as the Department is actively seeking to do, that the high level of demand for the new disability benefits–having introduced them myself, I welcome that high level of demand–is met by the administration. That is what my colleagues in the Department are seeking to do.

     

    Q8. Mr. Mark Robinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Robinson : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday’s White Paper on “The Health of the Nation”? Will he also welcome the fact that, at a time of vastly increased resources for the health service, the Government are pushing ahead to make further improvements to the health of the nation and will continue to do so?

    Mr. Newton : I agree with my hon. Friend. Yesterday’s White Paper is a significant development in the success of the national health service and in its further success for the rest of this century and beyond. It marks a significant move from the health service’s being, in old-fashioned terms, an illness service, to its being a genuine health service.

     

    Q9. Mr. Darling : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Darling : Why did the Government forget to mention in their manifesto of just three months ago that they intended to privatise water supply in Scotland?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman is aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has had those matters under consideration. He will also be aware that my right hon. Friend will set out the basis of Government policy in the appropriate way, at the appropriate time.

    Mr. George Howarth : Is the Leader of the House aware that this is national housing week and that housing provision and the construction industry are gripped in a crisis? Would not this be an appropriate time to organise the phased release of the £7 billion of local authority capital receipts to solve the housing crisis and the crisis that the Government have engineered in the construction industry?

    Mr. Newton : I am tempted to refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply that I myself gave on that point on Tuesday. The Government are in the process of making £6 billion available to housing associations over the next three years. That will produce about 150,000 new homes for rent or low-cost ownership.

    Mr. Moate : Recalling the visit to London by thousands of fishermen earlier this week, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to ask Parliament to impose tough restrictions on British fishermen which will not be applied to Common Market fishermen–including those who fish in British- controlled waters, with some taking British quota? As the proposals are clearly unfair and will almost certainly be doomed to failure without the industry’s co-operation, will my right hon. Friend consult his colleagues about withdrawing them now and starting new consultations?

    Mr. Newton : I certainly cannot undertake to enter consultations with a view to withdrawing proposals which are most important in relation to the conservation of fish stocks and, therefore, to the long-term future of our fishing industry. Other member states will be subject to Community targets. Our aim is, and will remain, to ensure that the burden of adjustment is fairly shared.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Munich – 8 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Munich, held on Wednesday 8th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Perhaps I could firstly add my thanks to Chancellor Kohl and his colleagues in the German government, to the government of Bavaria, to the City authorities, and perhaps above all to the people of Munich who had to face, as is inevitably the case on these occasions, some disruption to their lives. I am very grateful for their forbearance, I hope that next time I can walk in Munich in the streets rather than be part of a large number of cars that are blocking up the streets, and I look forward to that.

    May I now turn to the summit discussions. I think most of you will know when these discussions were first established some years ago, they were originally intended, as an informal opportunity for Heads of Government to talk. Over the years that original format has tended to change, they have become more elaborate, more formal, better prepared, but also I think engendering higher expectations.

    In this summit I think there have been some achievements and also some disappointments. We have met in the last couple of days against the background of a world economy that is still sluggish, a good deal more sluggish than we would wish to see it. All of us would like to see faster growth, but we are having to deal with the aftermath of a revolution as well as a recession. The revolution, of course, is still going on in Russia and even here in Germany there has been a revolution of a kind and Germany is having to use all its motor power to kick-start its own economy and to deal with the difficult problems of what was once known as East Germany.

    In our discussions, the difficulties of achieving non-inflationary growth were uppermost in our discussions. Unless we keep inflation down there is going to be no growth worth having. Recovery has been slower in coming than anyone anticipated and we all acknowledged that in our discussions, we agreed that we cannot achieve sustainable non-inflationary growth without a commitment to sound money and to fiscal policy.

    There was one measure above all others, I believe, that will help, and that is a settlement of the Uruguay Round. A GATT settlement would give a very sharp, non-inflationary, boost to the world economy, a sharp boost I think also to confidence. But the specific boost to the world economy is equivalent to 195 billion dollars gain in annual world income and of that figure around 90 billion dollars would accrue to developing and to former communist countries. So it is a very great prize, that GATT settlement, when it is achieved, it would boost the economic transformation of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, encourage developing countries to persevere with other reforms and check protectionism in world trade.

    Quite bluntly, an agreement in that GATT round is essential. Some progress has been made, the CAP settlement is one illustration of that, better understanding of what remains to be done and the difficulties within individual states is another indication of progress. The remaining gap still to be settled in the Uruguay Round is relatively small. As far as Britain is concerned, we could settle our difficulties in thirty minutes, there is no difficulty there for us.

    In our discussions I repeatedly stressed the importance and the urgency of a settlement. I think it was essential to have a discussion here and as a result of that we have got in the communique a firmer commitment to detailed negotiations on the outstanding issues than we have had before.

    For Europe, the European Commission are of course our negotiators. But the United Kingdom, as Presidency of the Community, have an active role to play and we intend to play it, there is too much at stake to let GATT slip back down the agenda and we have no intention of letting that happen.

    I mentioned a moment ago that among the countries that would benefit from a GATT settlement would be the former Soviet Union. We are about to have lunch and then an extended meeting with Mr Yeltsin. We do not, I think, just meet as creditors and debtor, but as partners. The measures agreed at the weekend with the International Monetary Fund are tough measures for the release of the first tranche of assistance to the Russians. They open the way to that first credit tranche, they point the way clearly to debt rescheduling, they allow the United Kingdom to release the 500 million dollars of export credit cover that I announced in principle when Mr Yeltsin came to London in January, and we shall now release it without delay.

    The problems that Mr Yeltsin faces are huge and the dangers that he faces are enormous. Very clear evidence of what is at stake is shown by our interest in the safety of nuclear power plants in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Chernobyl, to some, may seem a long way away, but I must say to you it is pretty close at home to a sheep farmer in north Wales who, six years after the Chernobyl incident, still cannot sell his sheep at market. The scale of the problem is huge with a dozen stations like Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union alone.

    We have to approach that problem in the following ways. Firstly, urgent safety work at the most unsafe power stations; secondly, to replace them with safe alternatives as soon as possible; and thirdly, to help the former Soviet Union develop alternative

    [section of original missing]

    If we had been able to agree a decisive breakthrough to a GATT settlement, it would have been a huge bonus for the Munich summit. Britain, as I have said, can agree without delay, everyone will have to reach an agreement, the sooner that is done the better. If push comes to shove I am confident it can be done and for my part, push and shove I will, and so will the United Kingdom until we do have that settlement.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, last year’s summit communique made optimistic noises about the prospects for recovery in the world economy, you meet here admitting that it is sluggish and you were over-optimistic, what hope do we have that this year’s declarations will have any more substance by the time we meet in Tokyo next year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are some signs of recovery and we can see them, but they are very slow and very sluggish. It was clear last year that like many other people we anticipated a stronger recovery and an earlier recovery than yet we have had. One of the ingredients of that, I am sorry to return to the point but I think it is a critical point, one of the ingredients to recovery is going to be confidence and one of the ingredients to confidence will be the security and certainty of reaching an outcome for the Uruguay Round.

    Now that is a self-evident statement of reality. It is very disappointing, not the fault of this summit, but it is very disappointing that we did not have an agreement to the Uruguay Round some time ago, some nations have difficulty with it and I understand that, but I think the clear understanding amongst every participant here of the importance to world growth and to confidence of that agreement on the Uruguay Round was self-evident. So I think we are better placed than perhaps we were last year when we felt the recovery would come earlier, swifter and more effectively than in practice it did.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I rather agree with that, I perhaps would not have expressed it in quite that way, but I rather agree with that. That was why I was the first Western Head of Government to say that I would go to Rio and why I am delighted that so many Heads of Government went to Rio for what was the start of a process, it was never going to be totally solved at Rio, just as it will not be totally solved by an interruption. But he clearly cares very deeply about it, the mistake he perhaps makes is to believe that other people do not care deeply about it as well and I believe that they do.

    QUESTION (Peter Jay):

    Are you disappointed in the results of your personal GATT initiative and do you apportion the blame for this to an over-estimate of American support or to an under-estimate of French obduracy, and do you agree, on reflection, that Munich is no place for British Prime Ministers to seek to make historic agreements?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have made progress on GATT, I am not here to apportion blame for the fact that we were not able to make more progress, I am going to have to negotiate and talk with colleagues and apportioning blame is not a good basis for getting future progress subsequently, what I want is an agreement. I think it would have been intolerable if we had not raised the matter and discussed it here and I think there was general agreement about that.

    What is becoming increasingly apparent is the narrowness of the differences that actually exist. And with political will and political determination and political instruction, the negotiators will be able to reach a GATT agreement, that has been quite apparent from the discussions that we have had here in the last few days. So I think it has given a further impetus.

    And perhaps I can put the point to you the other way round. If I had not raised it and if others perhaps had not raised it and there would have been no discussion of GATT at Munich, what signal would that have given about the determination of people to reach a settlement? It had to be raised even though it was probably not practicable to expect a full settlement here, not least because all the negotiating partners are not here to reach a settlement. But it was imperative that the attempt was made and that the fact that this is of central importance was once again registered and accepted by the Heads of the most powerful industrial countries. So I think it was right to come here and raise the matter and. I think it has been helpful to have done so.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Munich – 8 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Munich, held on Wednesday 8th July 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what do you expect to tell Mr Yeltsin today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we want to hear from Mr Yeltsin how his reform programme is proceeding, I think there is agreement now on the first credit tranche from the IMF, so there is quite stiff conditionality attached to it. I think we will want to discuss how the reform programme is proceeding, not just in general terms but what specifically Mr Yeltsin sees happening next week, next month and in the months immediately ahead, it is a crucial critical period.

    QUESTION:

    Is there a worry that he will be demanding almost a bottomless commitment to aid?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I do not think so, I do not believe that will be the case, I have no doubt that Mr Yeltsin will set out the very difficult circumstances he faces, we all sympathise with that, the position is indeed extremely difficult. But I think it is really a question of examining the difficulties, looking at the conditionality attached to the first tranche of the IMF loan and pitching our minds forward to see what might happen in the future.

    QUESTION:

    How disappointed are you at the failure to make progress on the GATT negotiations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not know that it is entirely true to say there has been failure to make progress, I think it was absolutely essential that the GATT negotiations came on the agenda here, I think it would have been intolerable for us to have come here, the leaders of the seven industrial nations, and not faced squarely the difficulties that actually existed in the GATT Round. We gave our commitment to examine this in the past, I for one was determined that we would examine it and we have. It has not been possible to make a full breakthrough, I think that was always to be expected, there were parties who were part of the negotiation who were not here. But there is now no doubt, not a shred of doubt, in anyone’s mind about the importance of the GATT Round and particularly the importance that the British attach to it. We should have had an agreement by now, we have not got an agreement by now, it remains imperative that we get an agreement and we will push, and push, and push, until eventually some time later this year an agreement is reached, it must be, and the sooner the better.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    GATT Negotiations

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to the proposals made by the Vice-President of the United States of America on 9 February to link the outcome of the negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and European security commitments by the United States of America.

    The Prime Minister : Vice President Quayle has confirmed publicly that he sees no link between GATT and the United States commitment to European security. Vice President Quayle and I agreed that the success of the Uruguay round was of vital importance to the world economy and that the European Community and the United States must work urgently for a successful agreement.

     

    Nuclear Non-proliferation

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he discussed the implementation of safeguards arrangements arising from South Africa’s membership of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty during the recent visit of President de Klerk to the United Kingdom.

    The Prime Minister : No. South Africa has signed an exemplary safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and preliminary IAEA inspections are already taking place.

  • PMQT – 13 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Ronnie Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

    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. Campbell : What advice has the Prime Minister for one of my constituents, Mrs. Logan, who lives in Camlinton new town and is in great pain with an arthritic hip? She has to climb the stairs with the aid of her husband and has to lie in bed in agony most nights. She has been told by the local hospital that she cannot have an appointment until June 1993. Is that the Prime Minister’s way of keeping waiting lists low?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of the particular case that he has mentioned, I will certainly have it examined. What he should acknowledge, however, is that spending is up by more than 50 per cent. in real terms, 25 per cent. more patients are treated, there are far more doctors and nurses, and they are far better paid, and treatments that were rare in 1979 are now commonplace. I wish that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would stop running down the improvements that have been made in the national health service.

    Mr. Aitken : On a constitutional point, does my right hon. Friend agree that if an assembly were set up in Scotland with responsibility for health, trade and industry, and taxation north of the border– [Hon. Members :– “Reading.”] In such circumstances, would not it be impossible thereafter for Members of Parliament with Scottish constituencies to sit in Departments as Ministers, administering those Departments– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Get it out, please.

    Mr. Aitken : I know that this is painful. Would not it be impossible for Ministers to be in charge of Government Departments administering those matters for England and Wales? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be right to set up a retraining scheme for soon-to-be-redundant members of the shadow Cabinet?

    Mr. Speaker : I think that that is enough.

    The Prime Minister : I should be happy to add that training scheme to the many other excellent training schemes we have at present. The point that my hon. Friend has made was graphically illustrated by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who is reported as having said that if Labour were to introduce its devolution plans he could not act as Secretary of State for Health for England and Wales. Presumably the same principle would apply to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). I look forward to their confirming that. If the Labour party were then to show some affection for devolution in Wales, perhaps the same principle would apply to an even more eminent right hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Kinnock rose–[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The Leader of the Opposition must have a chance to answer.

    Mr. Kinnock : Not until we have a Question Time for the Leader of the Opposition, but within a couple of months I shall be answering from the Government side of the House.

    Is the Prime Minister aware that in the 15 months since he got his job 840,000 people have lost their jobs? In this 22nd consecutive month of rising unemployment does he still cling to the pretence that the recovery has already started?

    The Prime Minister : I accept that the unemployment figures this month are disappointing–no one can deny that–but what we are seeking to do is to put people back into permanent jobs, and not temporary jobs. That can be done only by putting in place the right conditions to create long- term, permanent jobs, long-term growth and secure jobs. That is why we have been working to reduce inflation–with success ; to bring down interest rates–with success ; and to cut direct tax rates–with success. Of those people who have lost their jobs, more than 250,000 are this year in well worth while and excellent training schemes. That is the right way to help people, it is the right way to achieve long-term prosperity for this country and it is the way in which we have been developing our policies.

    Mr. Kinnock : For 2.6 million of our fellow citizens the unemployment figures are not disappointing–they are absolutely devastating. Why does the Prime Minister ignore the evidence of employers, who tell us that unless policies change 50,000 more jobs will go from construction, 40,000 from motor vehicles and textiles, with a further 70,000 manufacturing jobs going? Why does the Prime Minister ignore all that evidence? Why does he just sit there and do absolutely nothing to combat the recession that his policies have caused? After 22 months, does he not yet understand that sitting there crossing his fingers and closing his eyes will not bring recovery?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman talks of ignoring evidence. There is evidence, too, which he is ignoring. He has not acknowledged that more people are now moving out of unemployment than a year ago. Every month 300,000 people are leaving unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman quotes job losses, but he fails to mention Tesco’s plans for 5,000 new jobs over the next year, Safeway’s plans for 2,000 jobs, Nissan’s plans for 600 new jobs in the north-east, and the fact that Toyota is providing another 3,000 jobs in Derbyshire. He also chooses to ignore the fact that this country has a higher proportion of its population in work than any other Community country except Denmark.

    Mr. Kinnock : Under the Prime Minister’s leadership, in the last 12 months alone more than 800,000 jobs have gone and during that period the number of people in employment in Britain has gone down by 800, 000. The number of vacancies has fallen. Even the Chancellor confesses that the Government caused the recession. And they have continued it, and have let it get out of control. The Government are guilty on all counts.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend said no such thing, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about taking action, perhaps he will consider the action that he proposes to take in his policies: a minimum wage that will cost jobs, a payroll tax that will cost jobs, and a strikers charter that will create jobs–not here but in France, in Germany, in Belgium, in Italy, in the United States and elsewhere. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how the costs of extending national insurance or raising taxation will help employment? None of that will help employment. The right hon. Gentleman’s plans would spell disaster for this economy, disaster for companies and permanent unemployment for millions of people.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton : Does the Prime Minister accept that one of the great achievements of the Olympic movement is to bring nations together in sporting endeavour and excellence and that similarly, despite the forthcoming general election, all political parties are brought together to support this country’s bid to host the Olympic games in the year 2000? Will my right hon. Friend agree to support fully the Manchester Olympic bid which will benefit not only the north-west of England, where most of the events will be staged, but our capital city and the rest of the country–in fact, the whole nation?

    The Prime Minister : I met the Manchester Olympic bid committee some weeks ago when we discussed the proposed bid that Manchester wishes to make. I asked on that occasion for considerably more information. That is being provided and I look forward to meeting the bid committee again towards the end of this month.

    Mr. Ashdown : The Prime Minister is right–the Government are not wholly to blame for this recession, but they are chiefly to blame. Does he realise that what the country now needs from him is hope, but all that it gets is complacency ; that what the country needs from him is leadership, but all that it gets from him is excuses ; that what the country now needs is a Government who will act, but what it has is a Government paralysed by the election who dodge the issues, duck the realities and do nothing?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reprising his party political broadcast of last evening. It is a good sound bite, but it is not any better for hearing it the second time. What the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind, if he cares about real prosperity for this country, is making sure that we get the economic basics of inflation and the exchange rate correct so that we can get sustainable investment for the long term, not the short-term gimmicks that the right hon. Gentleman embraces.

    Sir Peter Hordern : Will my right hon. Friend tell Mr. Delors that the proposed increase in the United Kingdom contribution to the European budget is wholly unacceptable? Will he also tell him that the first priority must be to reform the common agricultural policy, to remove the losses from fraud which occur within that policy and, especially, to bring about a successful conclusion to the GATT negotiations?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend on each of the points that he makes. There is no justification whatever for an increase in the budget on anything like the scale that the Commissioner proposed. There is already scope for significantly increased expenditure within the existing own resources ceiling.

     

    Q2. Mr. Martlew : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

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

    Mr. Martlew : The Prime Minister will be aware that there is great anger and despair in the country at the announcement today that unemployment has moved up again. That is reflected in my constituency, where there are an extra 400 people unemployed in the Carlisle area, bringing the total to a staggering 4,000 unemployed. Bearing that in mind, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity today to condemn one of his Ministers who said yesterday that people who were losing their jobs were being “liberated”? Will he dissociate himself from that comment and will he take action today to see that the hon. Gentleman concerned is “liberated” from his ministerial duties? In other words, will he sack him?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by nearly 20 per cent. since the last general election. My hon. Friend has made clear his regret at the job losses at British Aerospace. The hon. Gentleman simply trivialises the issue with his remarks.

    Sir William Clark : Does my right hon. Friend agree that of the known policies of the Labour party– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Sir William Clark : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there were a minimum wage and also higher taxation both on individuals and on companies, that would kill inward investment and cause even more unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about that. It is also the case that most independent commentators–Goldman Sachs, Credit Lyonnais, BZW, Phillips and Drew, Nomura, the CBI–agree that Labour would cause a rise in inflation, with all the impact that that would have on living standards, jobs and future prosperity.

     

    Q3. Mr. O’Brien : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

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

    Mr. O’Brien : In a radio programme, the Prime Minister told Sue Lawley, in response to a question on housing, that repossessions had stopped before Christmas. Will the Prime Minister now tell us whether he accepts that, in addition to the massive number of homes repossessed last year, a further 80,000 families are to lose their homes in the current year?

    The Prime Minister : What I confirmed in answer to the question to which the hon. Gentleman has referred was that we had put in place measures to deal with the problems arising from repossession. Lenders have confirmed that they do not seek possession where the borrower has suffered a severe reduction in income support but is still making a regular and routine payment, nor will they repossess–which is the point that I was making– where income support is paid direct to them. I reiterate that point today.

     

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

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

    Mr. Dykes : Further to the European Community budget proposals, which were proposed unanimously by all the Commissioners, including the two British Commissioners, will my right hon. Friend also agree that extra resources long term will be needed for redundant farmers– [Interruption.] –in east European countries, and for the cohesion fund, that there is no need for us to have the United Kingdom budget contribution under-mined in any way by these proposals and that they are less in percentage terms annually than the last 10 years’ increase in the EC budget?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend points to the fact that there is scope for significantly increased expenditure, perhaps for eastern Europe and the cohesion fund, as he says, but without the existing own resources ceiling, which is still underspent. There is at this stage no justification for the proposed increase suggested earlier this week.

  • PMQT – 11 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Andrew MacKay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. MacKay : In the light of yesterday’s public sector pay settlements, which were particularly welcomed by teachers, will my right hon. Friend give the House some broad indication of just how many teachers will now be earning more than £20,280 a year? Will he also use this opportunity to give a categorical pledge that under no circumstances will he lift the ceiling on national insurance contributions, because that would, in effect, claw back the extra pay that teachers gained yesterday?

    The Prime Minister : I can tell my hon. Friend that well over 120, 000 teachers exceeded £20,000 a year even before yesterday’s pay increases. We anticipate that something over an extra 50,000 will now do so. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we will not remove the limit and impose an extra 9 per cent. national insurance on those teachers.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister join me in reaffirming that no group either using or supporting violence will be allowed by any Government to bomb its way to the conference table? Does he agree that when terrorists inflict danger and disruption on ordinary people anywhere–in Britain, Northern Ireland or anywhere else–they are not so much demonstrating their support for any cause as demonstrating their hatred and opposition to every community?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir. I am happy to agree without reservation with the points put to the House by the right hon. Gentleman. If terrorists believe that incidents like this morning’s will deflect our policy on Northern Ireland, they are mistaken. They have not been successful in the past, and they will not be successful in the future.

     

    Q2. Mr. Andy Stewart : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Stewart : When I last had the opportunity to question my right hon. Friend, he confirmed that under the Conservatives, miners and other earners in my constituency would not pay a higher rate of income tax. Can he confirm that he will not extend national insurance contributions to savings, because a large number of my constituents took early retirement from the coal industry and use their savings to supplement their income?

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend that guarantee. Conservative Governments have reduced the taxation on savings. We have abolished the investment income surcharge, and have cut the standard rate of income tax to 25p in the pound. We have introduced savings schemes such as TESSAs, and we believe that excess taxation is iniquitous when we seek to encourage people both to save and to invest in our economy.

    Mr. Lewis : Does the Prime Minister recall that in 1986 he announced the closure of DHSS resettlement centres and gave a firm promise that they would not close until alternative accommodation was available? Is he now aware that four centres, including the Walkden centre in my constituency, will close next month and that alternative provision is not yet available and will not be available? Is the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, going to allow the Resettlement Agency to rat upon his pledge or is he not?

    The Prime Minister : I set out at the time the details of the areas where we would see new and better facilities reopening, and those better facilities have reopened. In addition, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Government are also spending very nearly £100 million over three years to provide accommodation for people who are homeless in London. So far nearly 2,000 extra bed spaces have been provided, and the number of people who are out on the streets is substantially lower than 12 months ago. The hon. Gentleman would do well to acknowledge those facts.

     

    Southampton

    Q3. Mr. Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit the city and port of Southampton.

    The Prime Minister : Tomorrow.

    Mr. Hill : When my right hon. Friend visits the port of Southampton he will realise that two Conservative policies have changed the position of the port from stagnation to prosperity. The first policy was privatisation and the second the abolition of the national dock labour scheme. All the hospitals in Southampton have been rebuilt over the past few years. There is only one fly in the ointment– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let the hon. Gentleman ask his question–but briefly please.

    Mr. Hill : My right hon. Friend will know that there is a Labour-controlled council. Not only are its policies extremely wasteful, but one of the companies that it set up is just collapsing, insolvent, and this is costing £8 a head to every community charge payer in the area.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend puts his point with great clarity and in some detail. Southampton is already part of a highly successful privatised group of ports. In some of the privatised ports, ending restrictive practices has led to an improvement in productivity of 50 to 100 per cent.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Jack Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Thompson : Is the Prime Minister aware that, after a little local difficulty in the House, there was a meeting this morning between the Engineering Employers Federation and the northern group of Labour Members, at which one of the representatives of the federation said that the Department of Trade and Industry suffered from inertia? Will the Prime Minister consider removing this inertia from the DTI by sacking his Secretary of State?

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Q5. Mr. Ian Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Taylor : Does the Prime Minister agree that there is an increasing role for responsibility and involvement of individuals in improving their career prospects, whether through training credits for young people or through performance-related pay? Are these not better ways of improving the skills of British industry than the rigid structures favoured by the feudal barons of the trade union movement?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with the training credit principle which puts buying power in the hands of the people who seek training. If my hon. Friend will be patient, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will shortly have some comments which will please him.

    Mr. Robert Sheldon : Has the Prime Minister seen today’s Financial Times ? If he has, has he noted the three pages of advertisements by receivers and administrators of companies that have failed? The exercise is repeated in the columns of the Financial Times three times a week. Is it not clear that, in the light of all these industrial failures, it is the failure of the Government which really needs to be brought to account, and that it is the Government’s task to put things right?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the essential basics to make sure that things are right are to keep inflation down, to keep interest rates down, to have the right tax structure and to continue with the improved industrial relations that we have had in recent years. With his experience, the right hon. Gentleman will also be interested in the views of the CBI. If he is, he will know that the CBI opposes absolutely the reintroduction of the labour laws that the Opposition propose, the tax changes that the Opposition propose and the minimum wage that the Opposition have in mind. Each of those policies would be deadly to the future of British industry, British jobs and British companies.

     

    Q6. Sir Anthony Grant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Sir Anthony Grant : Will my right hon. Friend warn other world leaders, especially in the United States, of the dangers of a wave of trade protectionism and the catastrophic effect that it can have on the world economy in a recession? Will he emphasise to the Americans in particular the need to reach sensible agreements within GATT?

    The Prime Minister : I have had the opportunity of discussing that with President Bush on a number of occasions, and he is as committed to a speedy conclusion of the Uruguay round as we are. I believe that that is vital. The paper set out by Mr. Dunkel provides a basis round which the United States, the Cairns group and the European Community could rally to provide a satisfactory settlement. That settlement is as vital for the future of the international trading organisation as any other matter under consideration.

     

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

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

    Mr. Martlew : In a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on Thursday, the Prime Minister made it clear that he would not be supporting the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, which will come before the House on Friday, but did not clarify whether he is in favour of a ban on fox hunting. Will he take this opportunity to tell the House and the country whether he favours such a ban?

    The Prime Minister : We always examine legislation before the House with great care. The Bill before the House is not adequate.

    Dame Jill Knight : In connection with an incident that my right hon. Friend has mentioned already, is he aware that hon. Members and staff were unable to work in their offices at 1 Parliament street between 9.30 and 12.30 because of three IRA bombs placed in Whitehall? Is he further aware that immediately the road was made safe, but before any traffic was allowed to pass, there was a demonstration by IRA supporters, well equipped with banners and placards? Does he not feel that, as they were so ready to move and so well equipped, they knew all about the IRA bombs and probably the timing as well? Will he ensure that the police are given the photographs of that demonstration, taken close up by the media?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware–I have not yet received reports–of that demonstration, but I believe that it is ironic that the IRA and its supporters should at the same time be enjoying the privileges of democracy and using the methods of terrorism. I can assure them that they will have no progress until they renounce violence and terrorism. I believe that that is the united view of all the parties in the House.

     

    Q8. Mr. Grocott : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Grocott : Does the Prime Minister recall that it is now more than 12 months since he first started dithering about the election date, since when 750,000 people have lost their jobs? Is it not about time that he said to the 44 million voters who are sick and tired of the phoney election campaign that the general election will be on 9 April? When will he have the courage to say that?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will know that in the last year we have also cut interest rates seven times and halved inflation. I have no doubt that when we come to the election the electorate will have spotted that as well.

    Mr. Marland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is the first Prime Minister in history to attend the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union? Is he aware that the warmth of his reception was genuine, as the farmers very much appreciate his understanding of their difficulties with the planners and with marketing? Is he aware that they welcome his determination to do all he can to improve their lot, both at home and abroad?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly enjoyed my attendance at the National Farmers Union meeting this morning. I was able to talk to the farmers about the difficulties that their industry faces at the moment, the need for reform of that industry and the importance that farming will undoubtedly have in the future of our country.

     

    Q9. Mrs. Irene Adams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mrs. Adams : Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), recently wrote to him pointing out that the Paisley post code area lost 76 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs between 1979 and 1989 and a further 3,600 jobs since then? Does he recall that he replied that he did not consider those circumstances grim enough to undertake an economic initiative for Paisley? Will he now change his mind or shall we have to wait for the people to do that for him?

    The Prime Minister : I think the hon. Lady ought to be clear about what she means by assistance. When the Labour party speaks of incentives it means subsidies. Perhaps the hon. Lady will remember the success rate of the National Enterprise Board. It invested in 102 firms, of which one third went bankrupt or went into receivership. Less than one third of those firms returned the taxpayers’ investment. The right way to help manufacturing industry is to produce the right level of inflation and the right economy for people to make their own decisions.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on the Economic Declaration – 17 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on the Economic Declaration, made on 17th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is customary at the conclusion of the Summit for the Chairman to draw out the main themes of the Declaration. Happy to confirm this tradition.

    When we met in Houston a year ago, we welcomed the democratic revolutions around the world and committed ourselves to strengthening and securing democracy.

    In the year since Houston, the world order has been challenged, and has risen to the challenge.

    Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait brought home to all of us the threat that one lawless country can pose to the law-abiding world. We are still living with the political and economic consequences and this Summit has been a productive opportunity to draw some lessons and to deal with some of the wider political and economic issues where our countries, the wealthiest in the world, must give a lead.

    Political

    A number of these challenges were addressed in the Political Declarations we issued yesterday.

    We are determined to strengthen the United Nations system, politically and economically. With the Security Council now working as it should, the UN should be able to prevent fires as well as put them out. It needs the means at its disposal to tackle humanitarian emergencies. The UN must also be one of the means through which we curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction and through which we register and control conventional arms transfers.

    The theme of the Summit has been building world partnership and strengthening the international order. We were very conscious of the global nature of many of the problems we were discussing and of our responsibility to agree policies that did not just suit us but show our commitment to other countries as well.

    Our first responsibility, reflected in the Economic Declaration which will be issued very shortly, has been to underpin democracy, human rights, the rule of law and Sound economic management. I shall summarise the main themes.

    Our shared economic objectives are sustained recovery and price stability. We are determined to maintain the medium term strategy endorsed by earlier Summits. We welcome the fact that there are now increasing signs of economic recovery.

    We have committed ourselves to continue the strategy which has contained inflationary expectations and created the conditions for sustainable growth and new jobs.

    Crucial to the future prospects of the world economy is the success of the Uruguay Round. However technical the individual issues, the underlying reality is that failure in the GATT Round would lead to protectionism, a decline in trade and a reduction in job opportunities. The political ramifications would be equally devastating.

    We discussed this in some depth yesterday and have today committed ourselves to progress in the key remaining areas (market access, agriculture, services and intellectual property).

    Each of us has made a personal commitment to work for the success of the negotiations before the end of this year. We will be ready to intervene if differences can only be resolved at the highest level.

    Without success in the Uruguay Round, much of our help to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe would be undermined.

    We have offered strong support for political and economic reform in those countries. In different ways all the Group of Seven members are contributing know-how to enable the countries of central and Eastern Europe to move to market economies. There is no point in having a market economy without a market and that must include access to the markets of the developed countries. We have committed ourselves to that and welcome the progress which has been made.

    In the context of Eastern Europe – and more widely – we have discussed environmental challenges and energy. We will all take a full part in the establishment of a European Energy Charter.

    We have agreed to work to secure stable energy supplies worldwide, to remove barriers to trade and investment in energy, to encourage high environmental and safety standards and to cooperate on research and development.

    Concern for the environment touches on almost every aspect of policy. This was a good moment to take stock, a year before the UN Conference on Environment and Development. We commit ourselves to giving the Conference the necessary political impetus. By the time it opens we aim to achieve:

    (i) an effective framework convention on climate change committing all participants to concrete strategies to limit net emissions of greenhouse gases;

    (ii) agreement on principles for the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forest leading to a framework convention.

    We support the negotiation of a framework convention on biological diversity, including the protection of ecosystems, if possible to be concluded next year.

    We welcome the progress made in the development of a pilot programme for the conservation of the Brazilian tropical forest since the Houston Summit, and will financially support the implementation of the preliminary stage of the programme.

    Strengthening the international order implies support for the policies of good government. All the evidence suggests that bad government is a significant factor in the poverty of developing countries.

    In the Declaration on arms transfers we noted the recent decisions by several countries to take account of disproportionate expenditure when setting aid programmes. In the Economic Declaration we have commended those countries who have adopted the principles of respect for human rights and for the law; democracy, pluralism and accountability and sound market-based economic policies.

    We have agreed on the need for additional debt relief measures for the poorest, most indebted countries which go well beyond those already granted under Toronto terms. If I may say so, that will build on the initiative I took at the Trinidad meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers.

    We have, of course, given an undertaking to go on providing humanitarian assistance to parts of Africa facing severe famine. That too links in with our wish to strengthen the ability of the UN to respond swiftly and effectively to natural disasters.

    The problems of drug abuse affect all countries, both rich and poor. Action was set in train by previous Summits. This time we have focused on stepping up the fight against money laundering and against the supply of chemicals which can be used to make illicit drugs. We want to strengthen the capacity of law enforcement agencies to target the illicit drug movements. We have asked the Customs Cooperation Council to report on this.

    You will find in the Declaration support for the moves being made towards the political and economic transformation of the Soviet Union. That will be the story of this afternoon and I shall not say more now.

    Finally, we were all delighted to accept a generous invitation from Chancellor Kohl to go to Munich in a year’s time for our next Summit. We look forward to that.

    Thank you very much.