The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: GATT

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference at the Economic Summit – 17 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference at the Economic Summit in London, on Wednesday 17th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you all very much for being here to attend this press conference.

    We have had a very constructive and very enjoyable London Summit in the last couple of days, I think it has many virtues. The meeting brought out particularly clearly the extent to which we all share common values and common approaches to the main global issues that are at present before us.

    As you will know, we took as our theme for this conference “Building world partnership and strengthening the international order”. I would pick out eight particular achievements from this Summit.

    Firstly, on the political side in the text we released earlier this week the Gulf war and the aftermath have shown very clearly the crucial necessity for strengthening the United Nations. The Security Council and the Permanent Five of the Council in particular now work together probably as never before in the United Nations’ history. The United Nations can therefore become an instrument of peace-making and not just peace-keeping, fire prevention and not just fire fighting. and I think that is an important development.

    We have also proposed concrete steps to enable the United Nations to carry out one of its most essential tasks dealing rapidly, speedily, effectively with emergencies. And probably only the United Nations has the prestige and the resources to mobilise the kind of international effort we need to tackle a large human or natural disaster. And we have seen a number of illustrations in recent years of the sort of disasters that require action that can best be coordinated and pushed ahead by the United Nations.

    Amongst the suggestions that we have made is the designation of a high level official, answerable only to the United Nations Secretary General, responsible for directing and coordinating the international response to emergencies, including the mobilisation of financial resources.

    And secondly at the summit our emphasis has been on ensuring that a country like Iraq can never again build up such a huge and a deadly arsenal. We have outlined a number of measures we intend to pursue to ensure the better regulation of conventional arms sales and we are all pressing for the early adoption of a United Nations arms register.

    Thirdly, and turning to economic policy specifically, we recognise the increasing signs of economic recovery. These are very welcome but they do require us to maintain policies aimed at sustained recovery and at price stability. This strategy has created the conditions for sustainable growth and new jobs, it was very successful throughout the 1980s, it will I believe be equally successful throughout the 1990s.

    And fourthly, and vitally in the context of this conference, we committed ourselves to an ambitious package of results from the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations. Everyone’s aim, everyone’s aim, is to complete the round before the end of 1991 and we will all remain personally involved to ensure that that happens. We simply cannot allow the Uruguay Round to fail and so we will intervene if differences can only be resolved at the highest level and we are all personally committed to that approach.

    Fifthly, we renewed our firm commitment to support the economic and political reform efforts of the central and East European countries. We gave particular attention to improving their access to our markets since this is clearly one of the keys to increased foreign private investment in these countries and they need that investment to build up their economies and permit them to improve their own living standards and join the liberal market economies of the West.

    And sixthly, we welcome the spread of the principles of good government in developing countries. But many of those countries, and especially the poorest amongst those countries, still need our financial and our technical assistance to buttress their own efforts. A particular achievement of this conference was the agreement on the need for additional debt relief measures for the poorest most indebted countries going well beyond the Toronto Terms that were agreed in 1988. I am very pleased about this, I have been pressing for improved debt relief assistance for the poorest countries since I was Chancellor in proposals I made at Trinidad some time ago.

    And seventhly, we committed ourselves to work for a successful United Nations Conference on Environment and Development at Rio in June of next year. By the time of that Rio conference we aim to have achieved in particular a framework convention on climate change, an agreement on principles for forest conservation. And we also indicated that we support the negotiation of a framework convention on biological diversity by the end of next year. We also agreed to support financially the pilot programme for the conservation of the Brazilian tropical forest set in hand last year at the Houston Summit.

    And finally, we agreed to increase our efforts to reduce the demand for drugs, to improve the capacity of law enforcement agencies, to target illicit drug movements. In order to do that we invited the Customs Cooperation Council, on the basis of a United Kingdom initiative, to strengthen its cooperation with international traders and with international carriers.

    On the Soviet Union it was clear that we all support the moves towards political and economic transformation in the Soviet Union. we look forward to our meeting with President Gorbachev this afternoon. No-one present at the summit wanted to pre-judge those discussions and we will be making a separate statement on our meeting this evening together with President Gorbachev.

    This was the first Economic Summit that I have attended as a Head of Government. I discover that you get to know one another extremely well on these occasions and I think that is very important for a variety of reasons. It is certainly very important for tackling the issues we face and for making sure that one understands the particular concerns and interests of all the people with whom you are negotiating. As you will know, these meetings do not on the whole take operational decisions but they do set the policy within which individual operational decisions are then taken, either multilaterally or bilaterally or in some cases simply domestically.

    I believe in the present summit we have set policy in a constructive and relevant way, we have set policy in a way which will be welcomed I believe by many countries, by many organisations and by many individuals whose important interests we have sought to address in our discussions this week.

    Perhaps I may just finally take this public opportunity to thank all the organisers, interpreters and the many people too numerous to mention who have played an operational role in making sure that the summit was as successful as it could be.

    And finally If I may, perhaps at the risk of suffering for this over the course of the next few minutes, perhaps I may also thank you the press for the fair, full and frank way that I believe you have thus far reported the summit.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Peter Jay, BBC):

    Prime Minister, what assurances have you received from your European colleagues, especially President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl, that they will communicate paragraph 10 of this declaration to their Farm Ministers and if none what confidence do you have that there will be a world multilateral trading system for Mr Gorbachev to join as and when the Soviet Union has undertaken the necessary economic reforms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There was, Peter, in the discussions on the GATT round, some very frank, some very forceful debate and there was a remarkable unanimity on the political and the economic importance of ensuring that there was a successful round. Heads made it perfectly clear that they were prepared to commit themselves to personal involvement where necessary in order to resolve differences. And there are differences on agriculture, I do not think we should be hooked just on agriculture. there are great differences there but there are problems elsewhere on intellectual property, on services, on market access as well as agriculture, and on each of those it is necessary to make progress and if it is necessary for the Heads of Government to become involved then on the basis of our discussions they are committed to becoming involved in order to ensure that we reach an agreement within this calendar year – that is a global agreement and satisfactory to everyone on the question of the Uruguay Round.

    There were many sub-plots to that particular text but I think there was a particular interest of course that it is very important for the developing countries as well that we actually reach a satisfactory agreement with open markets. There is very little point in us as the richest, wealthiest industrial nations in the world providing aid to the developing countries and then having a restraint in international trade that causes more damage to their economies than we can put right by the aid we give them.

    So I think those arguments were very clearly expressed, very forcefully expressed and I believe the personal commitment that the Heads have undertaken to give will give this a real political push to make sure that we reach an agreement this year. It would be serious if we failed and we all know that.

    QUESTION:

    Inaudible.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What I perhaps should have added in my opening statement is that there was very considerable interest and concern expressed about the very important conference there will be in Rio next year, I hope personally to go to Rio, I believe a number of other Heads of Government will go there, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development will be immensely important, the most important conference of this sort that we have ever seen. And there will be many issues, no doubt that is one of them, there are others, the Brazilian rain forest issue I mentioned, and literally an enormous number of other issues and the right forum to address that will be the UN conference next year and it will be addressed there.

    JUDITH DAWSON (SKY NEWS):

    Might not President Gorbachev be forgiven for thinking there is a slight contradiction between the very strong support that you are giving to the reforms on paper and what he might expect to take home materially?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let us actually consider the question of President Gorbachev when I have a later press conference today but I will make some general points now:

    I think the first general point, Judith, is this: we have invited President Gorbachev to come and join us, the G7 Heads of Government, in order that we can discuss the Soviet economy, that we can discuss what remarkable progress it has made in the political and economic reforms and what still needs to be done.

    We have invited President Gorbachev here because we share with President Gorbachev a wish to see progress towards economic reform in the Soviet Union. We have not invited him here to say we are not interested in it; we have invited him to say we are interested in it and you will see the outcome of those discussions in the later part of this afternoon, so I am not going to pre-judge what will be the outcome of them.

    I think it is a matter of courtesy to discuss and listen to what President Gorbachev has to say and then to determine the extent to which we may help. We have helped very considerably over the past few years with the Soviet Union. The greater and much improved relationship there has been politically between the Soviet Union since President Gorbachev became President and the West generally is something of immense importance to all of us. He is here because we invited him here, because we are keen to see that progress on political and economic reform continue and it is an historic occasion to have the whole of the G7 Heads of Government sitting down with the President of the Soviet Union to discuss world matters and the particular problems there and I think President Gorbachev regards this as a very important event and so do we but it is not an isolated event. Nobody suggests that suddenly, when we have finished our discussions some time this afternoon, that that is going to be the end of debate between us – of course not. This is part of a continuing debate and it is part of a debate in which for some time we have been playing our part in helping the Soviet Union change its political and economic structure and we will continue to do that in future as well.

    QUESTION (LE MONDE):

    A question for the Prime Minister: I would like to know if you are satisfied with the result of the summit on arms sales and nonproliferation and especially I would like to know if you thought that the French delegation about this particular subject of arms sales and nonproliferation has been fully cooperative with the other six members of the G7.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I do. I do think that. We have got an agreed text on nonproliferation and on arms sales generally and there is no dispute about the objectives of that text and indeed, if I recall correctly, President Mitterrand has himself put forward his own initiatives on other occasions to deal with the general problems of arms proliferation, so I am very content with the text; I think it carries the debate forward. It must now go forward to the United Nations where the European Community countries will table language to actually carry this debate forward, so I am entirely content firstly that we have advanced the debate and secondly that there is a unanimity amongst all the G7 nations – as indeed there is amongst the other European Community nations not represented at G7 – that this is a matter of vital importance that we should develop further through the United Nations.

    PETER NORMAN (FINANCIAL TIMES):

    I notice from paragraph 44 that you have agreed on the need for additional debt relief for the poorest developing nations but apparently not agreed the additional debt relief. What are the problems here and are you personally disappointed that the words “Trinidad terms” are not in this summit communique?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no! They couldn’t be because “Trinidad terms” was a Commonwealth term. The reason we have agreed on the need is that we are not the forum that negotiates it; we are an integral part of the forum that negotiates it but the actual details of the debt relief will have to be negotiated in the Paris Club. It is now clear that it will be negotiated in the Paris Club but it is not for us, the G7, to make decisions that can properly be taken and only properly be taken in the Paris Club, so this gives a big push towards much greater debt relief for the very poorest countries exactly in the direction that we set out before. The details have yet to be determined but we are the wrong forum to determine the details but we are the right forum to make it clear that we, amongst the largest creditors of these poor indebted countries, are prepared to see a very substantial improvement in the write-off of their debts and we are, I emphasise, talking of write-off and not rescheduling.

    RALPH BEGLEITER (CNN):

    You have spent a lot of time at the summit discussing the Middle East ranging from Iraq to the Middle East peace process and arms proliferation as well. You have talked about curtailing arms flows to the region and elsewhere in the world. Why was the G7 unable to decide to cut off arms sales to all of the conflicting parties in the Middle East peace process as distinct from a cutoff of weapons to countries like Kuwait which are facing the aggression from Iraq? Why not cut off the arms sales to the Middle East peace process countries in order to pursue this problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not a question in the way you put it of cutting off arms sales. All of the G7 countries believe that other sovereign nations have the right to self-defence. What we are concerned about and what other countries not represented at our Conference were concerned about as well, is where there is a growth of armaments to such an extent that it exceeds the armaments that are necessary for defence and provides an accumulation of armaments that is of a sufficient size for offensive purposes and that is why we see the advantages of transparency and a United Nations arms register and agreeing amongst ourselves criteria for the sale of conventional arms. So those were the matters that were principally in our minds; they, of course, are matters that we will have to develop in the United Nations.

    ROBIN OAKLEY (THE TIMES):

    Prime Minister, which section of this Declaration proved hardest to agree and why?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I sometimes think, Robin, you would ask me about the secrets of the confessional if you thought I would give you an answer!

    There was very strenuous discussion on a number of aspects of it. There were very forceful points to be put. There was a very strenuous discussion on various aspects of the environment and on various aspects of the GATT Round but on all issues this was although friendly a very frank summit; people did speak their minds clearly, comprehensively and on occasions in an unforgettable way [Laughter] so I think it would be indelicate of me to pick out a particular highlight.

    KEITH ROCKWELL (JOURNAL OF COMMERCE):

    Prime Minister, the language in the communique is very strong indeed on the GATT but a sceptic might ask: “Such language was also included in Houston last year; why should we get the feeling that there is going to be progress in the Round by the end of 1991 if it could not have been achieved at the end of last year?”

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is the sort of question that can only be answered in retrospect by the actions that are taken. We have set out clearly our commitment. I believe on the basis of that commitment it would be perfectly possible, if it proved necessary, to actually call together a summit of Heads if the GATT Round looked as though it was going to fail. I don’t believe that will be necessary because I believe the commitment of Heads of Government that was expressed at this indicates that they will give it their personal involvement.

    There are difficult issues on a whole range of subjects that have to be solved but I think everybody was very aware of the difficulties there would be if we did not get a satisfactory agreement to the GATT Round, not just the obvious dangers of protectionism and a trade war, not just the differences between the Community, the North American States and the Cairns Group but also the areas that are close to agreement that would increase the flow of world trade to everyone’s benefit – that would be lost if we fail to get an agreement to the GATT Round.

    I think as people get closer to the deadline – and we of course in terms of negotiating this satisfactorily between now and the end of this year are close to a deadline – we have to start making progress speedily in a matter of weeks if we are going to get this thing satisfactorily concluded and I can only say to you, on the basis of what was said around the table and the concerns that were expressed around that table in a forceful and clear-cut way, that I have no doubt about the commitment of the Heads of Government to seek if at all possible to reach an agreement and there was an acknowledgement that this may mean for many individual countries painful decisions that in isolation they would prefer to avoid – it was expressly stated and expressly agreed that that would be the case – but the bigger prize for all of us is a loosening-up of world trade, a liberalisation of world trade, and a big step forward in the Uruguay Round, so I can only hope that you will accept our bona fides and I hope by 1 January next year I will be able to say to you: “We delivered!” Certainly, I think the commitment is there to deliver.

    JAN KOVIC (TV BELGRADE):

    In a Political Declaration and up to yesterday, G7 expressed their political support for the peaceful settlement of the political crisis in Yugoslavia. What if such settlement cannot be reached? Are there any counter-measures to be taken?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure that us expressing details of that is helpful to the present situation in Yugoslavia. There have been a number of initiatives to actually ensure that the first and most important ingredient actually comes about and that is that one actually is able to stop the current bloodshed in Yugoslavia. There is a great deal thereafter to follow on that; it is clearly a difficult and a messy problem to be solved. There are particular difficulties: the Slovenes have one view, the Croatians another; there is of course the always constant concern of the position of the Serbs and perhaps the Serbian minority in Croatia but there is a very great European interest collectively in seeing that this matter is settled satisfactorily.

    I have got no glib and easy answers that I can offer you this afternoon and I don’t believe there are any glib and easy answers that anyone could offer – not even the Foreign Secretary will be able to solve this matter in the next two or three minutes! But I can say to you that the understanding of the problem that exists within Yugoslavia was discussed at great length amongst the Foreign Ministers and has been discussed bilaterally amongst many of us. We all have an interest in making sure if we can, to the limits that we can do so, that there isn’t more fighting and bloodshed in Yugoslavia but the Yugoslavs at the end of the day must work out the way in which they proceed. We can express our own views and express our own hopes and express our own solutions but I don’t think we are in a position to impose them and I think we must wait and see how the debate develops.

    QUESTION (FINNISH TV):

    Prime Minister, G7 has clearly been backing Japan’s demand to have her Islands back. How strongly will you back this afternoon the request for the independence of the Baltic States?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to go into the details of our discussions this afternoon. There are many things we want to discuss this afternoon with President Gorbachev and many of them are practical issues that arise out of the extensive Paper that he has prepared and that he has circulated to Heads of Government.

    We have a great will to help where we can but that help has to be practical. We have to make sure there is no failure of dialogue between the Soviet Union and ourselves on a whole range of issues, including the ones you mentioned, including defence generally, including what the Soviet Union mean by “privatisation”, do they mean what we mean? Including what they mean by “liberalisation” and “price reform”; do they mean what we understand by those terms?

    This afternoon is going to be an occasion where across the table – not in formal set-piece statements but across the table – in what I think will be a very constructive dialogue, we can actually examine those matters and reach conclusions about how best to go forward but this is not an occasion for backing people into a corner; it is an occasion for extending the continuing dialogue we have had with the Soviet Union and expressing our views as forcibly as I hope and believe President Gorbachev will express his own, but I don’t think the points you raised particularly will emerge as crunch-points this afternoon.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    It is worth adding that the Baltic countries are mentioned in the Political Declaration so they are not forgotten; they are mentioned in the context of negotiations between the Soviet Union and the elected governments in the hope that they will resolve their future democratically and in accordance with the aspirations of the people. That is a re-statement of a familiar position but it does show that they have not been forgotten.

    GEORGE JONES (DAILY TELEGRAPH):

    Prime Minister, the Declaration speaks about welcome signs of economic recovery but earlier on this week the Chancellor was talking about coming out of recession in the second half of this year. I can’t see actually those words mentioned in the Declaration. Are you both confident that the recession is now over and that it will happen in the second half of this year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will ask the Chancellor to speak first and then I will follow up what he has to say.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    The view of the G7 was that the global recovery, the recovery of G7 from its lower rate of growth in the first six months of this year, was now happening; that recovery was under way both in Canada and in the United States and that whereas growth had slowed down in the first half of the year in France and Italy, growth would now be higher in the second half than they had anticipated, so for the global G7 economy we did see recovery and even for those countries that had not gone into recession an upward trend in growth.

    For the UK, this very much fits in with this and the fact that the United States and Canada are coming out of recession will be enormously beneficial to us. The fact that European currencies have depreciated against the dollar will also be an added impetus to recovery, all of which I think are thoroughly consistent with what I have said about our recovery which is not yet under way, our recovery beginning in the second half of the year.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is anything to add to that. Thank you all very much indeed!

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Mitterrand – 24 June 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Mitterrand, held in Dunkirk on Monday 24th June 1991.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Ladies and Gentlemen. We are very happy to welcome Mr Major and several of his Ministers today here in Dunkirk, it is in the framework of the regular talks that we have between our two countries. Mr Major and myself have had a conversation and then Edith Cresson, the French Prime Minister, joined us and at the same time the Ministers had started meeting in the middle of the morning in order to work out the conclusions which they then put to us later.

    The talks revolved around Europe of course, the preparation for the Luxembourg European Summit which as you know will be beginning next Friday. There were a certain number of agreements, we are understood for example on the need to terminate the intergovernmental conference by the end of 1991 at Maastricht in the Netherlands, but considering that the Luxembourg text on political union I should say as the basis of our work. We also talked about defence and the structure of the future treaty on economic and monetary union with the transition from one stage to another.

    There were other questions which we also talked about, in particular the WEU, GATT and the Schengen agreements. And then moving further away from Europe we discussed several international matters, still in connection with WEU, the preparation of the forthcoming meeting of Foreign and Defence Ministers on 27 June and then for Iraq we noted considerable convergence of views on the vigilance that had to be deployed in northern Iraq, in Kurdistan, so as not to have the past beginning again, guarantees have to be given to the Kurdish populations. On the one hand the [indistinct] if necessary the means for such vigilance to be set up. There are certain questions which have been put to the Iraqi government and replies to those questions will to a large extent determine the steps that have to be taken. We also talked about the Atlantic Alliance and the preparation of the forthcoming Summit on 15 July and bilateral cooperation in defence matters.

    But I will leave it to Mr Major to pursue this presentation and I would like to say to him once again that for we the French it is always fairly pleasant and certainly extremely useful to be able to take into greater depth our conversations because our two countries to such an enormous degree are associates in the broader areas of political affairs for Europe and for international affairs generally. So I wish to thank you, Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, thank you very much indeed and thank you for those opening remarks.

    President Mitterrand has set out in the last few moments the breadth of our discussions this morning and I have very little really to add to that. It has been a very useful and I think a very timely meeting with the European Council immediately ahead of us, the World Economic Summit in July and with our joint intention to reach agreement on the two inter-governmental conferences by Maastricht at the end of this year.

    So I am most grateful today both to President Mitterrand and to the Mayor of Dunkirk, Minister of State Delobar [phon] for their hospitality and for the warmth of their welcome here today. This is of course a town with very historic connections for both of us. It was also a very pleasant opportunity this morning to meet for the first time Madame Cresson. the new French Prime Minister, I very much enjoyed that and I know my colleagues have had very useful discussions with their opposite numbers over the last few hours.

    The relationship that the United Kingdom has with France is very important to us, it is one of constant meetings, constant exchanges, it is a fluid, long-standing and vitally important relationship both within the European Community, within NATO and bilaterally, it is one we treasure very much indeed. And although this is the first formal Summit for a year, the President and I have met on a number of occasions over the last 6 months and there is frequent contact and frequent meetings between Number 10 and the Elysee, I know that will continue and I welcome that very much indeed.

    It is vital I believe to both our countries to reach agreement on European defence. We need to reconcile the desire to spell out long term concepts and concerns with the need to be certain what they mean in practice in the near term and we have instructed our officials to work on this problem with the intention of taking an agreed position at the Council at Maastricht.

    On Friday and Saturday of this week we should in Luxembourg take stock and give guidance for the future work of the two vitally important inter-governmental conferences. Very considerable progress has been made under the Luxembourg Presidency and I am very happy to congratulate them on the work that they have done. The President and I have agreed this morning that we can build on that progress to reach decisions at the European Council at Maastricht in December. What we cannot do at Luxembourg this week is to take partial decisions half-way through a negotiation on subjects which can only be judged as a whole at the end of the negotiating process.

    We touched on a wide range of matters in our discussions. On economic and monetary union, for example, it was agreed that strengthening the Ecu was a very important part of Stage 2 and that monetary policy should remain in national hands during that period. There are many matters still to be discussed both at the European Council and in ECOFIN before we are able to finalise decisions on economic and monetary union towards the end of this year.

    We discussed also a number of the important matters that are dealt with in the political union treaty and found there were areas of clear agreement and other areas where there was still more work to be done. But I hope and believe again that it will be possible [indistinct].

    We touched very briefly on the prospect of welcoming President Gorbachev to London next month at the end of the Economic Summit, I think that will be a useful meeting, I believe it will be an opportunity to hear from President Gorbachev of his commitment to democratic institutions in the Soviet Union and for the development of a genuine market economy. Those are discussions both the President and I look forward to.

    And finally on bilateral issues we are intensifying our discussions on possible areas of cooperation in the defence field. Britain and France played a very notable part in the liberation of Kuwait and in the establishment of safe havens in Iraq. We believe that there is room to enhance that cooperation as we develop a stronger European defence identity.

    So in summary we have had some very worthwhile and very wide ranging discussions over the last few hours, I have found them most useful and I look forward to continuing those contacts in the future.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Thank you very much, Prime Minister. I could add to what you have said, the intensity of our relationship will be given additional confirmation fairly soon because we will be meeting on 29 July in Calais to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the treaty signed at the time on the Channel Tunnel.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    [NB: Microphone difficulties made audibility difficult]

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, would we be talking more about a common currency or a single currency?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    [Indistinct] that is of course the whole question of substance, as you know, single currency/common currency. What was said among ourselves is that the process that has started, and we agreed on the timetable for the three stages, the point is that this programme should make it possible for us to go towards a single currency with it being understood that for France this is a [indistinct] and to negotiate with our partners for the setting up of a single currency; whereas for the UK it could be a consequence if everything that will happen before that time, before the date chosen by the Community has in fact developed to lead harmoniously to the possibility of having a single currency. In other words, the theoretical and a priori view points are different, the method that would make it possible for a rapprochement to take place and really Mr Major quite recently has taken certain initiatives on the hard-Ecu which after all had made it possible for the situation to get unblocked. But I think it would probably be better for the Prime Minister to say himself what his position is on this.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you very much. You do touch on the very heart of the problems that remain to be decided and there is a great deal to be concluded before we can reach proper decisions about this. One of the matters of course that is of most importance is a proper assessment of what the economic results of proceeding either via a common currency or via a prescriptive approach to a single currency might be. Such a detailed economic analysis has not yet been concluded and one does not quite know what the outcome of that would be. But I have expressed my concern in the past about a prescriptive move forward suddenly to a single currency without the right degree of preparation and the right degree of economic convergence. And the United Kingdom would find it very difficult to agree to the objective until it actually knew what the effect of the objective would be and we cannot of course know what the effect of the objective will be until we see to what extent and in what fashion and at what pace the economies do converge. And that is one of the matters that must remain under discussion between now and the remainder of the year.

    The proposal that the United Kingdom put forward when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer was a proposal to create a parallel or common currency in the term that you used but would enable countries to utilise that common currency whilst withdrawing their own domestic currency at the same time to ensure there was no growth in money supply and hence increased inflationary prospects in Europe. That is a matter we shall still want to discuss with our colleagues. If the hard-Ecu proposal were successful, if countries wanted it, if companies wanted it, if individuals wanted it, then it is self-evident that that would develop into a single currency and it was with that proposition and with that understanding that we actually launched this proposal in the summer of last year. So these are .matters under discussion and the prospect is that we will discuss these and the economic effect of those routes in the period between now and December.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    The question, which you may or may not have heard, was should the word “federal” go, be removed from the Treaty, but that problem has not really been settled. Some people would like to move towards a federal structure, others no and the discussion is an open one so one cannot prejudge that particular question.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but question repeated by interpreter]

    The question is whether the French would be prepared to support the British in Luxembourg and try to defer or evacuate that problem of a federal goal.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    The French are in favour of an orientation of that kind if you like but we had not planned to spend the little time at our disposal to try and persuade our British friends to share our views on that. We may perhaps try in Luxembourg or during the course of the year – that will be for later.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Our views on the word “federal” have been clear for some time. There are some differing views within the European Community as to what the word “federal” actually means. It certainly means different things to different nations in the European Community and that does give rise to a considerable amount of confusion but as expressed and understood in the United Kingdom of “federal” being a centralisation, it is not an attractive proposition to the United Kingdom and the formulation we prefer is the formulation of course that appeared in the original Treaty of Rome of ever closer union of the peoples of Europe. That is a prospect that operates bilaterally and operates also through the Community that is a more acceptable premise but the idea of federal union is not an attractive concept for the United Kingdom and we have made that clear repeatedly.

    QUESTION:

    While accepting that the word “federal” can mean different things in different countries, why has it become such a sticking point for the United Kingdom?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There must, at the conclusion of these Inter-Governmental Conferences, in the Treaty be no doubt about the destinations to which we are heading in that regard so if there is doubt about what “federal union” may mean and it may be interpreted as leading to a great level of centralisation beyond that that we would find tolerable in the United Kingdom or that I believe many of our partners would find tolerable in the Community, then we ought not to leave such a phrase so capable of misinterpretation in the Treaties.

    At this stage, we have a draft Treaty in front of us, the details of that have not yet been discussed. There will be many changes, I have no doubt, of all sorts in the Treaty texts that are before us in Luxembourg and some of those changes may be flagged up in discussions at Luxembourg this week-end, others will not, but I think the time to be concerned about the detail of what is in the Treaty is as we come close to Maastricht and of course, at Maastricht and at the conclusion of it.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    The discussion has only just started; one cannot consider it is closed. The two IGCs have fixed the end of 1991 in order to conclude and we have not got there yet so we cannot prejudge the decision that will be taken.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think, Mr. President, that the discussion of the long-term goals of Europe is a purely British discussion? Do you think that on the French side the French have really accepted the idea of a European federation and that, in a way, we should talk about this?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    No, I confirm what has already been said: the debate has not yet taken place; it just has not started yet so we cannot say what the outcome will be.

    In France, I myself mentioned that as a hypothesis, a possibility, but it is only one hypothesis.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you now have French and German support at the Summit for a Monetary Union Treaty which, if necessary, allows Britain to opt-in at a time of its choosing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    These are discussions that we are going to have in ECOFIN and at the European Council over the months ahead. We have discussed many of the details, many of the practical aspects of what needs to be discussed but until we have reached the conclusion of those discussions, we cannot determine what the outcome will be so it is not a question of making agreements and deals way in advance.

    We have set out the reservations which we have; we have discussed the details and the way ahead with our partners in France and in Germany and indeed in a number of the other European countries and we will advance those discussions over the months ahead.

    I think we have made the position as clear as we possibly can about the reservations that we have. I have, for example, made it clear on a number of occasions that progress towards economic and monetary union, which was mentioned originally in the Treaty of Rome and also in the Single European Act, is not just a question of dates though I understand the desire to set dates as a time-table but it is also utterly dependent upon the key questions of economic convergence which in the view of the British are more important than simply the dates; that one needs to see whether the economic situation makes it a justifiable proposition to contemplate moving from a dozen currencies in Europe to one.

    Those are all details and technical matters many of which are only in their infancy in terms of discussion, so it is impossible yet to reach final conclusions as to what the outcome will be.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    We have come back several times to this kind of discussion and after all, it is very pleasant for me to see several members of the press who seem to be in a great hurry for the whole thing to be done with and in a way they sort of share my own feelings on this but certain deadlines have been fixed, certain times, a time-table has been fixed, a time-table which takes us in fact several years ahead. These are things that are very important, serious matters and difficult matters to be given time since they in fact will affect the future of the twelve countries of the Community and perhaps others too so it is something that has to be carefully thought out.

    Our positions on the French side are well known. We tend to want more, if you like, than the common structure that is under discussion and the discussion should be over its first period before the end of 1991. We ourselves have our preferences obviously and our preferences would be for a stronger structure of the federal type for example but it would be very premature to put that point of the problem to partners who have not even finished talking about Political Union and Economic Monetary Union, so I think there is a time for all things.

    QUESTION:

    My question is nothing to do with the Franco-British discussion. A Moroccan Member of the Opposition has just been expelled from France. Is that a question of “reasons of state” so to speak or are there genuine reasons which explain and justify the fact that Mr. Duni [phon] has been expelled from France? Why was this done?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Mr. Duri for many years enjoyed the status from 1974 of a political refugee and this was under my predecessor – seven years under my predecessor, more than 10 years under me – but as long as he was content with respecting the obligations of a political refugee because there are certain obligations on both sides – it is a contract, if you like, a contract between the country of asylum and the refugee – and the political refugee has to show certain constraints and that is what happens.

    In France, there are political refugees of all nationalities. My definition of a political refugee is someone who is rejected by the government of his country and who rejects such government and so obviously is a spokesman of a certain vigorous form of action against the political system of his own country.

    But France, acting as host as it were, cannot accept to move into serious difficulties with each of the countries from which we have political refugees so there are certain duties concerning constraint shown by a political refugee and this is a legal obligation; this is mandatory for any political refugee asking for right of asylum in France.

    This kind of problem arises very often and I repeat that it is rather understandable surely. A political refugee is usually someone who wishes to pursue in a different form the [indistinct] that he is engaged in but France also has her own obligations.

    So for 17 years there was no real problem except that for several months now – and also this is nothing to do incidentally with the hypothesis that some people have thought up about the recent incidents – but for several months Mr. Duni had been warned that on several occasions and in several areas he was in fact violating the rules and his obligations. This does happen periodically but not very often in France because one is fairly indulgent but the time did come where he had gone beyond the limits and there were too many violations of all kinds and therefore it was decided to expel him.

    What do you want me to add to that? For the rest, under our French law, freedoms etc. are fully respected. One can express oneself in France, any French citizen who says something in writing or in speech and is subjected to no censorship as you know well, particularly with regard to Morocco because that is the country we are talking about. A foreigner can publish what he wants to publish but one cannot accept the repeated violations – I would almost say continuous violations – of the rules governing political refugees because after all, diplomatic relations between France and the countries concerned depend on all this.

    From time to time I have problems of this kind with a certain number of countries with whom we have diplomatic relations, very often good relations or perhaps not all that good, but the law is the same in all cases and one has to abide by the law.

    QUESTION:

    Can we take it, then, from what the President and the Prime Minister are saying, that the conference in Luxembourg will merely be a stocktaking exercise; that Britain need not expect to be bounced or ambushed in any way on major decisions at that conference?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Great Britain never allows herself to be bounced as you indicate and certainly no other country of the Community would try to do that. No! One tries to convince Great Britain of the validity of certain options but that is quite different and there have been in the past particularly fairly lively discussions but we have always managed to move forward; Europe has always moved forward so I am very confident in the outcome following discussions that it will be perfectly well understood that the Inter-Governmental Conferences are to be terminated in 1991 and therefore this will take place at Maastricht in the Netherlands.

    The first European Council in each year – and of course there is a change as you know every six months – makes it possible to take stock of the situation and see where we are, sort out the problems of the day and that is what will take place in Luxembourg, especially as the Luxembourg Government has prepared a document which is a very well-drafted document and which will contribute to shedding light on the whole range of our discussions.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sure there are going to be issues of substance discussed at Luxembourg – I don’t have any doubt about that. There are a great many things that will need to be discussed on the basis of the Luxembourg draft and then we will have to determine where there are broad areas of agreement and where there are not and I think it will highlight the direction in which the discussions must go for the remaining six months of the year. But we are only half-way into these discussions; there is a long way to go yet and a long way before we can reach final conclusions.

    One of the points of general agreement amongst, I think, all the Community nations is that there is a great deal of inter-relationship between the conclusions both of the Economic and Monetary Union Conference and the Political Union Conference and of the subjects that need to be decided within both of those treaties, so although some areas will throw up points of agreement and points of disagreement, for practical reasons it will be towards the end of the year before final conclusions can be reached when the two packages are seen as a whole.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to ask President Mitterrand and the Prime Minister, following their discussions, how they both see the future relationship of NATO, Western European Union and the European Community developing and how soon each now expects to see a common defence policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have a great deal to discuss about the development of defence. The defence of Europe has been based on NATO for a long period of time and both France and the United Kingdom are both members of NATO and very important members of NATO.

    The development of defence policy in the future has got to examine separate premises: the development and sustenance of NATO and also the fact that within that, it is both desirable and I think inevitable that Europe itself should make a larger contribution to the communal defence of its own territories.

    Those, I think, are points of total agreement and what we have to discuss in the discussions about NATO, about Western European Union and about the Community’s aspirations towards common defence is the best mechanism for taking this debate forward but it is an important debate and one we will have to take step by step.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    The debate on common defence is not a debate between France and Great Britain but between France and those who, in the framework of the integrated NATO command, decided to take a certain number of initiatives quite recently, initiatives in which France intends to participate, so there is no specific point really between the UK and France on this; it is a more general debate within NATO at the political level and not in the military framework because France is not present in that military framework.

    But alongside this there is a debate also on the future of the WEU; in other words, we are looking for a sort of embryo for European security and the British and the French are on the same side and engaged in usually constructive discussions and it is really the link between these two manners of approaching security which is at present in question but I repeat this is not specifically a Franco-British negotiation.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Bush – 16 March 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Bush, held in Bermuda on Saturday 16th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just say by way of introduction, we have had some extremely useful discussions this morning covering a very wide area. I think they have come at a very appropriate time at the end of the Gulf conflict, there is a great deal to discuss, a great deal to have learned from the conflict, and it also gave me the opportunity of expressing to the President the tremendous admiration that is felt in the United Kingdom and elsewhere for the remarkable way in which he led this particular enterprise.

    Amongst the matters we were able to discuss this morning were of course the aftermath of the Gulf, the general position of security in the Middle East, present circumstances in the Soviet Union, the GATT round, the developing situation in South Africa, arms control and an interim report on Secretary Baker’s talks in the Soviet Union. So it was a fairly wide agenda but I will not elaborate on it now, I will invite the President to say a few words and then perhaps we can take your questions.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    Mr Prime Minister, all I want to do is to thank you for the hospitality, thank the Governor General of Bermuda and of course the Premier and say we have enjoyed it. I agree with you that these talks are very very helpful and we are determined, I think it is fair to say, that we are determined now to go forward and each country try to be a catalyst for peace, building on our success in the Gulf. So thank you Sir and I am just delighted to be with you once again.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (CNN):

    In Saddam Hussein’s speech he said the insurgency in the south had been crushed but continued in the north and he also seemed to be issuing a very strong threat once again to the Kurds saying that if they persisted they would be crushed by those who succeeded them?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I have learned long ago not to comment on something that I have not heard or have not authoritatively read, but there is dissension inside Iraq, that is a matter that we are not involved in, and I would simply repeat that Saddam’s credibility remains at an all time low ebb as far as the United States is concerned.

    QUESTION:

    Do you see any role for the British or the Americans forces intervening militarily in Iraq?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I do not, that would be going beyond our mandate. I will say this, that at the tenth meeting certain arrangements were made and certain ground rules spelt out, British and US commanders agreeing, the Saudis and all the coalition forces agreeing in telling Iraq that certain things should not happen – movement of aircraft for example – and so they should not violate the conditions that they agreed to. But having said that, none of us want to move forces into Baghdad, frankly we don’t want any more fighting but they know what the ground rules are and they ought to play by those rules and live by them.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no more to be said, I think that is precisely it.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, in Saddam’s speech he also indicated that he was willing to set up some kind of multiparty system, almost verging on democracy, what do you make of that kind of talk from Saddam Hussein and would that be something that the United States could live with, could Saddam Hussein stay in power in Baghdad under that kind of arrangement?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I would find it very difficult to see a situation under which we would have normalised relations with Saddam Hussein still in power, his credibility is zilch, zero and if he wants to talk about this, fine, but what people are looking for I think is full compliance with United Nations resolutions, it is complying with the ceasefire terms and I do not know what this speech is about, I simply cannot comment on it, but if he is proclaiming that Iraq will be a democratic nation, fine, but I would want to see proof of that, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you mentioned the report of Secretary Baker, what conclusions do you draw about future relations with the Soviet Union in view of the apparent lack of progress on control, both CFE and START?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Insofar as we are concerned, Secretary Baker reaffirmed what I said to Mr Gorbachev a few days ago about the resubordination of the large amounts of Soviet military to the Navy, I think Mr Gorbachev has taken the point, it is a matter he will clearly have to look at. His military are a good deal more hard line about that matter than I think he is but I think he now understands the absolute imperative of sticking to the CFE agreement that he signed. On START I think there is a general wish to proceed with the START talks again and we must hope that that proves to be possible. But we must make sure in my judgment that the CFE agreement itself is actually enacted before one can go too far on START.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I can add to that because the Baker/Gorbachev meeting and Baker/Bessmertnykh meeting sustained very much what the Prime Minister has just said came out of his meeting, so the Soviet position has been, I think the Prime Minister expressed it very well and Jim Baker made clear, as did the Prime Minister in his meetings, that the naval infantry question must be resolved and we have got to go forward in the CFE agreement along the lines that we thought we were entering into.

    QUESTION:

    What kind of steps do you think Iraq needs to take in order for the economic sanctions to be enlisted and is the supervised destruction of their chemical weapons stockpile one of the steps that you think has to be taken?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly would like to see the supervised destruction of their chemical weapons, I think that is extremely important for future security in the Middle East. There are a raft of matters, all of which I think spring out of the Security Council resolutions of recent months, that will need to be incorporated in the ceasefire proposals. There is a considerable amount we need to see. I think we do need to see for example the destruction of the chemical weapons, that is certainly the case. I think there is a good deal else we need to see, we need to make it absolutely clear, and it needs to be absolutely clear from the Iraqis, that they actually recognise the position that now exists in Kuwait and that that is going to be a permanent recognition, we need some assurances on that. I think we have to look at wider issues as well, we will certainly have to look at the question of arms control in the area, that is a matter that will need to be developed I think very probably amongst the Permanent Five though there are other mechanisms for doing it.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    The only thing I could add to that is that some arrangements for peace keeping, perhaps a role for the United Nations, perhaps a role for an Arab force, but there are a lot of details that have to follow but the Prime Minister clipped off the major concerns that we have and I think I will sense here that our coalition is united on this.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One might actually add to that of course the release of Kuwaiti detainees and perhaps some hypothecation of oil revenues in order to meet some of the losses and costs that have been incurred in Kuwait.

    QUESTION:

    There seems to be a growing discussion in Europe about a defence unit for the security of Europeans. What I’m wondering is whether, Mr. Bush, you see this as an exclusion of the U.S. and how you feel that may affect NATO? Because that’s been its traditional role. And Mr. Prime Minister, what’s your thoughts on it?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I think I would start by saying that certainly in the conversation that we had today there are no differences in terms of where the UK and the United States stand. I do not think the United Kingdom is foreseeing the pulling out from our responsibility for security by the United States and so I had discussions on this with President Mitterrand and there have been some nuances of difference perhaps not necessarily between the French and the United States but between some in Europe and the United States and I that think they are manageable differences.

    The United States has a key role, we think that we performed that role adequately in the past and we have every intention of fulfilling what is in our national security interests in the future. And I think a presence where we continue to have a strong NATO for example is in our interests. After all, though tensions are lessened there are still a lot of question marks out there. But I can say in terms of my discussions with the Prime Minister that I do not think we have differences on this point, but I will leave it to him.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are absolutely no differences at all. NATO has very successfully kept the peace in Europe since the Second World War, it has been the cornerstone of the peace and the American presence in NATO and the presence of their troops in Europe has been absolutely fundamental to the security of Europe. So we certainly would wish to see absolutely nothing that would damage that. I think what some of the Europeans are concerned about, and I think they are right to be concerned about that, is the fact that Europe will need to make a greater proportion of contribution to the communal defence of Europe but I think that is a contribution that will have to be channelled through NATO and there is no difference whatsoever between the United States and Britain on that point.

    QUESTION:

    Both of you said you don’t want to see any more fighting in Iraq. I’m wondering, how do you intend to enforce the terms of the tent agreement? Would that be just another thing under the umbrella of lifting economic sanctions, or do you have something else in mind?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think we want to go into detail about that, we have made it very clear to the Iraqis what we expect them to do, I think we must wait for them to do it, it is our expectation that they both will and should.

    QUESTION:

    Are you ruling out military action?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    We are not ruling anything in or out but we are making clear, as General Schwarzkopf did yesterday, that they must abide by agreements made and there are many agreements in the future that we have not ironed out, many provisions in the future that we expect Iraq will comply with, the Prime Minister having set out a very good litany right here. So we are not trying to elevate the chance of further military action, when we said ceasefire we ceased firing and we want to see that formalised and that is what we are approaching and I will not go into hypothesis on that.

    QUESTION (Eleanor Goodman):

    A question first about the roles for Britain and the United States as catalysts for peace. Do you see this as two separate roles or is there a specific role for Britain in that and a specific role for the United States?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I don’t look at it that way but we have separate initiatives. For example, the Prime Minister went over and amongst his talks in the Middle East itself he began exploring avenues for peace. Secretary Baker is doing that now on the trip that he took. Now I guess he is on his way to Turkey. On each step of the way, each of us will be exploring and then we will have talks like this.

    There is going to be probably some United Nations role to play; there is going to be bilateral relations between ourselves – I am speaking now for the United States – and the State of the Israel; we have communications now and contact with Syria – I happen to think that that can be catalytic for peace.

    So we are not talking about an assignment to the United States to do A, B and C and for the UK to do what follows on X, Y and Z or vice versa and we had talks with Mr. Mitterrand about this.

    What we are trying to do is to say: “Look! We now have a renewed Western credibility, certainly Coalition Force credibility, and let us use that to try to bring peace to the Lebanon, try to bring peace to the Israel-Palestine area, the West Bank, etc. and try to bring peace, security and stability to the Gulf”.

    There isn’t one formula yet and I don’t think there will be a single formula until a lot more consultation has taken place. Some have suggested the instant convening of an international conference. The policy of the United States has been a conference at an appropriate time might be useful – that has been our policy for the last eleven years – but we are not going to urge that at this point until we see that it would be productive. We don’t want to have a conference and some people fail to show up if presence there at the conference is an absolute sine qua non for success.

    So we are going to just keep talking, keep consulting but not tarry. I do think that we ought to seize the moment and I know that is the goal of the United States and I gather that after further consultations this morning that that is the role of the UK.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, you speak of the Coalition Force credibility. The Soviets are not part of that Coalition. Secretary Baker met with the Soviets in the last couple of days, you two have discussed the Soviet role in the new Middle East. What is a valid role for the Soviets now, not being a member of that Coalition and just a member of the United Nations? How far do we go?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    You appropriately pointed on the United Nations. The Soviet Union state remains solidly with the United Kingdom, the United States and others in the United Nations. Had that not been the case, obviously the United Nations would not have had the positive role that it had.

    I gather from just a preliminary report – not talking to him but a preliminary report – that Mr. Zoellick passed along to me and to the Prime Minister that Jim Baker felt that after talks with Gorbachev and Bessmertnykh, the Soviets wanted to still play a constructive role. They have interests in the Middle East. We don’t view this as something that is against us and so true, they were not in the Coalition in the sense of having forces but they worked very cooperatively with us in the United Nations and inasmuch as there should probably be some UN role – perhaps the blue helmets along some peace-keeping line – we want to continue to work with the Soviets; we want to continue to keep that cooperation.

    So I don’t think their failure to have troops on the ground in the Middle East – which we did not ask them to do incidentally – is a detriment to their playing a useful role for peace. They know a lot of the characters there. I would love to see them improve relations with the State of Israel – I think if they did that, that could be a very important point in how this peace is brought about.

    After the Baker talks – and again, I would defer to the Prime Minister who did have his own talks with Mr. Gorbachev on that – I see them as still wanting to play a constructive – not obstruction – but constructive role with whatever follows on.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can certainly confirm that. In the discussions I had with Mr. Gorbachev less than a fortnight ago, he made that perfectly clear in perfectly clear terms, that he wished to play a constructive role in an ongoing settlement in the Middle East and I see no reason to doubt his bona fides in that respect.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, if a formal cease-fire cannot be arranged until Saddam stops deploying his remaining forces, what does that mean for the timetable for the return of the British forces back to the UK and if American forces do become involved, would British forces become involved as well?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are too many premises there that may not come about to be precise. I don’t know precisely when we will have a ceasefire. We are looking at the moment at what a cease-fire Resolution might contain and it may be quite a substantive Resolution – there is quite a lot to get in it – and I do not think we can address those secondary questions until we have that Resolution. It may be that we will have one broadly ready to begin presenting at the end of next week but I think there can be no certainty about that.

    At the moment, the return of British troops continues. We had Security Council Resolutions to meet when we sent the troops there; those Security Council Resolutions have been met and the troops are now returning home. But I think the other premises you raised cannot be answered at this stage.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 January 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th January 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Government Achievements

    Mr. Sayeed : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the achievements of Her Majesty’s Government since 1987.

    The Prime Minister : Since 1987 the Government have continued to build upon the changes begun in 1979, to strengthen the economy, foster a spirit of enterprise and improve living standards. Sterling has been brought into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, reinforcing the Government’s strict anti-inflationary policy. Output is 8 per cent. higher. Investment has grown faster than at any time since the second world war. Taxes have been reformed. Privatisation of 29 more major businesses has taken place and 24 per cent. of the adult population now own shares. The Government have exercised strict control of public expenditure–general Government expenditure has been brought below 40 per cent. of GDP for the first time since 1966-67. Almost £30 billion of public debt will have been repaid by the end of the current financial year. Over 2 million more people are in work than in 1987.

    In the public services we have improved efficiency, safeguarded quality and enhanced safety. Key themes, reflected in the reform of the health service, in housing policy and in education have been to increase choice and to encourage people to take personal responsibility for their well-being and that of their families. The Government have striven to improve the quality of life of all the British people. A number of special initiatives have focused on those living in inner cities. The Government have played a leading role in developing environmental protection, nationally and internationally.

    The Government have maintained a firm commitment to national defence and the NATO alliance. We have supported and contributed to NATO’s efforts to establish closer relations with the Soviet Union and with the countries of eastern Europe. The United Kingdom has played an important role in securing firm reaction of the United Nations in dealing with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. We have played a positive role in the building of the single market in the European Community.

    Common Agricultural Policy

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) Official Report, 18 December, column 165, what further investigation of the common agricultural policy he expects the EC to make ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The common agricultural policy is likely to be subject to a period of further reform as a result of renewed production and expenditure pressure and the outcome of the current GATT negotiations. The Commission’s 1991-92 price proposals are likely to incorporate a first instalment of these reforms.

    GATT

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his statement on 18 December, Official Report, column 157, whether the remit for the EC negotiations in the GATT talks has been altered by the recent Heads of Government meeting.

    The Prime Minister : The meeting of European Heads of Government asked the Commission, which negotiates on behalf of the Community, to intensify its contacts with other participants in order to resolve outstanding problems.

    Minimum Wage

    Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 13 December, Official Report, column 1108, on what basis he calculates the figure of a loss of three quarters of a million jobs through the establishment of a national minimum wage.

    The Prime Minister : Officials in the Department of Employment have estimated that a national minimum wage set at half male median earnings will result in the loss of about three quarters of a million jobs. This estimate uses earnings information from the new earnings survey and information on the relationship between real wages and employment set out in the published Treasury paper “The Relationship Between Employment and Wages : Empirical Evidence for the United Kingdom” (HM Treasury, January 1985).
    A detailed explanation of the method was placed in the House of Commons Library on 2 February 1990–“Estimating the Effect of a National Minimum Wage”.

    Publicity and Advertising

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his reply on 17 December, Official Report, c. 15, if he will list the Government conventions regarding the use of paid publicity and advertising within which expenditure on advertising in the press, television and other forms of publicity is a matter for departmental Ministers.

    The Prime Minister : The conventions on Government publicity and advertising have already been published. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on 28 June 1990 to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) at column 311.