The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Germany

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Helmut Kohl – 27 April 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with Chancellor Helmut Kohl, held at Northolt on Wednesday 27th April 1994.

    [Some of Chancellor Kohl’s comments were inaudible due to the translation being heard at the same time].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    May I just say at the outset how pleased I am to see the Chancellor back in the United Kingdom. Over the last few years we have met in a number of countries, quite apart from the United Kingdom and in Germany, we have had meetings at chalets in Austria and many European Councils, I am delighted to see such a good friend of the United Kingdom back here for a meeting today at Chequers.

    We have a wide range of European Union and wider European matters to discuss today and no doubt we will report on those at our press conference later on this afternoon.

    Let me just say at the outset that I am pleased to say it does seem we had a pretty quiet night in Gorazde. At the moment aid is getting into Gorazde and patients are getting out and I am delighted that that proves to be the case and I hope further examination this morning will show that the Serb armaments have been moved to 20 kilometres away, as requested, we will know about that I think fairly shortly.

    I think the Chancellor and I will also wish to discuss the South African elections, both Germany and the United Kingdom have taken a great interest in moving South Africa towards democracy in recent years and despite the further disgraceful bomb incident this morning, it does seem that the election is proceeding satisfactorily and we look forward to the new government being formed and to the role that both Germany and the United Kingdom can play in helping South Africa move forward to the future.

    I think on bilateral and other matters I will reserve any comments until after our press conference this afternoon, but I will invite the Chancellor to say just a word or two at the outset.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    It is a very great pleasure to be here once again. We have had a very strong and [indistinct] cooperation and we have been able to achieve a lot together. And the relationships between our countries are not like the weather today, the relationships are very sunny, they are excellent, we have [indistinct] and if there are questions or problems then we always manage to discuss them in a very friendly atmosphere.

    We have a lot of understanding for each other, we understand each other well. Britain and Germany are amongst the important countries of the European Union and from my perspective as the German Chancellor it is particularly important that the common European future is actually done together with Britain. We have different histories, we have different traditions and it is quite natural and obvious to me that we take into consideration how the other countries have come this long way [indistinct].

    [Indistinct] very particular day because the truth is that it was the British government [indistinct] who during these whole years [indistinct] in South Africa have actually committed themselves to this course of action. It was a process that often one had to wonder whether it [indistinct] success and neither of us has any illusions, we know how very difficult it is and we know how difficult it is to achieve what [indistinct] and to achieve it in a useful way. But if I look at the many meetings in the European Council where we talked about it over the last 10 years or so, and if I think of the Conference of the G7, it is a very great pleasure to think that today we really have made enormous progress.

    And I wish all of those who are suffering in the former Yugoslavia that what has been attempted now and what has been started will actually lead to success and that all those who are active there will understand that a civilised international community cannot [indistinct] where one changes orders with brutal violence.

    I am looking forward to our day, a day amongst friends, and I would like [indistinct].

    QUESTION:

    Do you still believe Sir Leon Brittan should be the next Commission President?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a number of very good candidates, we think Leon Brittan is a very strong candidate for the Presidency of the Commission, there are other candidates as well. It is our view that Leon is the best candidate, we will need to discuss that with all our colleagues and there will be a collective decision.

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s not an immediate prospect.

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Chancellor Kohl – 11 November 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Chancellor Helmut Kohl, held at Heythrop Park in Oxfordshire on Wednesday 11th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say firstly that the Chancellor and his colleagues are very welcome indeed here at Ditchley, we know each other so well now we were able to get down very rapidly to business and it has been a very productive summit for both of us.

    I think everyone will know the length to which I and the Chancellor have both gone to persuade the Community and the United States to negotiate to reach a successful conclusion in the GATT round. I am delighted that the Commission have today announced that they intend to restart talks again next week. I think that is vital. What the world economic situation calls for at present is calm discussion and not sabre rattling and we do need that GATT settlement comprehensively and as speedily as possible. I have no doubt whatsoever that a very valuable prize in the form of that GATT settlement is within our grasp and it will bring with it a boost of some 200 billion dollars to world incomes.

    And I think there is a further point about GATT that the Chancellor and I have been able to discuss this morning and it is simply this. The rich countries of the world owe it to the developing countries of the world not to hold up a deal, the poorer nations would gain around 90 billion dollars from the GATT round and that is of course twice the level of total official aid and I think that does place a very considerable impetus on the need to secure a successful outcome for the Uruguay Round.

    On bilateral and European matters, the Chancellor and I discussed in detail the agenda for the forthcoming Edinburgh summit and I explained how, in our Presidency role, we intended to handle the Danish proposals. We agreed specifically on the need to take firm decisions at Edinburgh on subsidiarity. By that I mean the Community only doing what the Community needs to do and with greater openness. And we agreed also that we needed to make progress on enlargement of the Community, starting with the EFTAN states. Both of us want to see the early accession of those EFTAN countries into the European Community.

    We discussed also this morning the difficult question of the Community’s budget. Germany of course is the largest net contributor and the United Kingdom is the second largest. We both agreed that it is necessary to keep the Community’s finances under control and to ensure that we get the best possible value for money for the money that is spent communally by the European Community.

    One of the many positive aspects of the Maastricht Treaty is that it will help achieve that goal and whilst I mention the Maastricht Treaty let me commend to you the booklet produced today by the British Government which translates some of the Eurocomment into English and copies will be available for people and I hope they will find it very useful.

    At the plenary session with our Ministerial colleagues we discussed a number of matters, amongst them the European Fighter Aircraft, a very important European collaborative project. The recent four nation study has shown that we can cut the costs very substantially and I very much hope that future studies will confirm that we have a basis for going ahead with such a new fighter aircraft, we have not reached that position yet but the discussions will continue between our Defence Ministers in the weeks ahead.

    Ministers also discussed the former Yugoslavia, we welcome the news of a ceasefire although we remain cautious about how lasting it will prove. Douglas Hurd can respond to that in greater detail if there are specific questions on it.

    Let me also report straight away some excellent progress in combating international crime and drug smuggling. Community member states are working together on an intergovernmental basis to establish the first stage of Europol by 1st January next year and this stage will include a drugs intelligence unit which will involve officers from all member states of the Community. They are expected to work in support of national police forces to strengthen the hands of the police in the battle against organised crime.

    Those are just a few of the matters we discussed this morning, by no means a comprehensive list. A few examples are the areas of cooperation between Britain and Germany and very clear proof that relations between our two countries remain extremely good. I was very pleased this morning to be able to tell the Federal Chancellor how much The Queen had enjoyed her recent state visit.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    John, Ladies and Gentlemen. First of all I should like to thank you most warmly for the friendly and hospitable reception which we have received here today and I am thanking you on behalf of the German delegation also. These consultations have taken place in a very warm atmosphere and I think this is an atmosphere which reflects the relationship between our two countries and indeed reflects the friendly relations which exist between John Major and myself.

    I should like to take this opportunity before the British public here also to explicitly and expressly thank you for the State Visit of Queen Elizabeth II to Germany. We were especially pleased that the focal point of this visit was in the new Federal states which reflected the particular interest which Great Britain has shown in the development of the new federal states and I think the programme of the visit also shows that today, and this has been mentioned, Great Britain has moved into second place amongst foreign investors in the new federal states of Eastern Germany.

    At the forefront of our consultations, the Prime Minister mentioned this of course, were the preparations for the European Council in Edinburgh. It is in our joint interest for this meeting in Edinburgh to be a great success, In the course of the special meeting in Birmingham we conducted much useful preparatory work and we agreed that it is now time to ensure in these few weeks in the run up to Edinburgh that we lay down clear guidelines and above all criteria for the application of the principle of subsidiarity, we need to develop these criteria, this is going to be a most decisive point for our consultations in Edinburgh and this also corresponds with the wishes of our population.

    The Prime Minister and myself agree, and I think almost all our colleagues in the Community agree, that we also need to discuss in Edinburgh the wrong developments which took place in the past and we need to correct these false developments.

    Against the background of the discussions which have taken place over the last few months in connection with the Maastricht Treaty it is now time for us to do everything we can in order to ensure that we develop the picture of a democratic Europe which is close to its citizens and in which we respect national identity and culture of all member states. Maastricht is not, as occasionally is said here in Great Britain, the starting point for the development of a centralist Europe, nobody wants this. We wish in future with the Maastricht Treaty as Germans, Britons, Italians and French, we wish to remain within our national identities.

    We agreed that at Edinburgh we shall discuss the question of new states, of EFTA states, to the European Community. I hope that we will be successful in ensuring that at the beginning of 1993 negotiations can begin, and this is another area where we agree.

    A further focal point of our discussion of course concerns ratification and the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty. Prime Minister Major explained to me once again the reasons why the ratification procedure in Great Britain has been postponed to the first half of 1993. I wish to state quite clearly that I of course respect this decision, this is a British decision, l have much comprehension for the problems and the difficulties which have been encountered and which have led to this decision. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister will undoubtedly ensure that the treaty is ratified and this is my particular wish and that of the German people.

    What is decisive for us is that the treaty should remain unchanged and should be ratified by all states within the Community so that it can then come into force in 1993. As you know, but I will repeat this once again, we shall be discussing the treaty and ratifying the treaty at the end of November in the Federal Parliament and then the second Chamber will discuss this in the middle of December and ratify the treaty also.

    We also wish to undertake all we can and we agreed on this point, the Prime Minister and myself, that we must find a way for our Danish friends to ratify the Treaty of Maastricht for as far as the German position is concerned I would emphasise once again that we wish to move into the future with all Community states, it is not our objective to create a Europe with two or three speeds, but we also do not want to have a Europe a la carte.

    Prime Minister Major, just to mention the GATT round, and I can only support everything that he said, both of us over the last few weeks, I think up to the last few hours, have been conducting joint work on this subject and trying to ensure that the GATT round comes to a successful conclusion. The situation of countries of the Third World, the situation as regards a recession in our economic development should force us to sensible action and should then help us to move towards a compromise.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Can you tell me, Chancellor, how the negotiations on the EFA project went on and whether the two Ministers came closer together?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    This is a question I would like to reply to. I am very keen that we speak to all our partners, with the UK, Italy and Spain, and achieve a sensible agreement. We have found that the project as it is at present has become too expensive in its general configuration and we made great savings and intend to make great savings and now new calculations are available and I am certain that we will have a sensible result. For the German side I would say very clearly that we wish to have a common European solution but no lack of confidence vis a vis our American friends are quite incapable of having that, but it is a precondition for our future development in Europe and there is a performing aircraft and aircraft industry and that is why I think we will achieve a sensible solution here.

    QUESTION (Edward Stourton, ITN):

    Could I ask the Chancellor whether he was upset by what the Prime Minister has said recently about the ratification process of Maastricht and whether he thinks it will threaten the Danish referendum or the outcome thereof? And the Prime Minister whether he agrees with what the Chancellor said about Maastricht remaining unchanged?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me answer the second point. We certainly do not want to change the substance of the Maastricht Treaty, that is the Treaty that I agreed to in Maastricht and we do not wish to change that. What Denmark wants to do is to make some amendments outside the Maastricht Treaty and that is what we will be examining in the discussion at Edinburgh and no doubt beyond Edinburgh. But the substance of the Maastricht Treaty is the treaty that we agreed before.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Would you allow me a frank comment concerning the whole of the subject after the debate in the UK? When I became Federal Chancellor, Ladies and Gentlemen, 10 years ago the most used word in Europe was Eurosclerosis, it was the concept of a bad illness going together with the concept of Europe. If 8 or 7 years ago we had held a press conference here and we had said we are able to work out the Maastricht Treaty, most of you would have commented that they must have gone quite mad, there is no chance at all.

    Now we drafted the Maastricht Treaty together, of course the Maastricht Treaty is a compromise, all sides of course have made efforts to achieve this compromise and we now have a new situation, it is a new milestone in the life of European peoples. Although in spite of the Maastricht Treaty we will remain Britons and Germans, we are not going to give up our homeland, our mother tongue, our nationality, we remain Britons and Europeans and Germans and Europeans. But particularly on a day like this, which is an historical date if we look at this century, we will have to look back at the long way we have come and I would put it to you quite simply, if one of our friendly countries, the UK, has for its own reasons the wish to say please give us a few months time, why should I criticise the British for that? I have every confidence in the Prime Minister that he will achieve his objective. I also have all confidence in the fact that the majority of the British understand that the future lies in a peaceful and economically successful. Britain in Europe. So if it is a matter for us to give some time to the UK, I would quite agree to say OK, proceed like that, I am quite confident that things will be successful and I have no reason to get excited about that.

    QUESTION (Hans Slegermann):

    Chancellor, did Premier Major ask you to exercise more pressure on the French as regards the GATT round of negotiations?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Not at all. That would have been a quite nonsensical activity, quite nonsensical if John was to exercise pressure on me and it would be just as ridiculous if I were to try to exercise pressure on the French. Anyone who understands the psychology of nations knows that this is the worst recipe for action that you can imagine.

    We are both convinced of the same thing and this I think is a conviction which is largely shared by our French friends. We need to conclude the GATT Round. It will be a compromise because without free world trade, positive development of the world economy is unthinkable.

    Before I look at the industrial countries, I would name the Third World as an example. If for example GATT is not successfully concluded, if we withdraw into a fortress mentality with declarations of a trade war, we will not be able to move forward into the future. It won’t be mainly the French, German and English who will pay although they will be paying – it will be the countries of the Third World who pay the most and if you look at the sums of development aid in the budgets of all the industrial countries and lump them all together then you still won’t get anywhere near the sum which you might achieve if you can guarantee free trade through GATT.

    We need to exercise international solidarity and we must have a commitment towards GATT and we need Free World trade if we believe that jobs in Germany, Great Britain or France can be secured and new jobs can be created. If we withdraw into Fortress Europe and the Americans withdraw into Fortress United States, then this would be an idiotic form of politics. That is quite simply a fact. We need GATT. We need a sensible compromise.

    I can only say quite critically that over many months we have been prepared to compromise and have wished for a compromise. I don’t want to place blame upon anybody involved but if the acting President and the future President of the United States are listening, I would like us to reach a conclusion and this is the vote we have put to the EC Commission in Brussels and I think we have a good chance of achieving this.

    As far as the French are concerned, France is an exporting country as we all are; they have agricultural problems as we do too but I am absolutely against now pillorying the French, which has happened occasionally over the last few weeks.

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds – BBC Radio):

    Prime Minister, do you feel in any way weakened in your negotiations by your domestic problems? You have had problems with monetary matters, the miners, Maastricht and now munitions for Iraq. Do you feel that you are reversing the Teddy Roosevelt dictum about speaking softly and you are speaking loudly yet carrying a small stick?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer to your question is quite straightforward and quite simple – no. You asked me a direct question; I gave it a direct answer.

    No, I don’t. The negotiations we have carried out in Europe have been clear-cut and crystallised from the beginning by a clear set of objectives. That was the position and remains the position and I think on many of those matters we have negotiated very successfully with our European Community partners.

    In any negotiation there is always a degree of give and take. If there is not, it is not genuinely a negotiation. That is what has happened. I think our European partners have seen that we have negotiated with them in a straightforward and satisfactory way and I believe we have received a very satisfactory result as a result of those negotiations.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    May I add one comment, John, although the question was not addressed to me.

    I must say frankly that I think it would be bad policy if one of us were to have difficulties internally and we were to try and exploit those difficulties. The Europe which I wish to achieve must always be a Europe which comes together and those who want to really make the last possible calculations on this will fail.

    QUESTION (David Foley – BBC Newsnight):

    Prime Minister, how much damage did the withdrawal from the ERM cause to Anglo-German relations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it has caused damage to Anglo-German relations and I think you can probably see that quite clearly today. I didn’t seek a withdrawal from the Exchange Rate Mechanism; market compulsion made it necessary but I think that is well understood amongst our partners in Europe and I believe it has done no damage whatsoever. It is fully understood.

    QUESTION (George Jones – Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, the German Chancellor appears to have suggested that he is willing to see several months delay and understands the need for that over the Maastricht Treaty. Can the Prime Minister now give us an assurance that if the Danish referendum is delayed beyond May, perhaps to the summer or even the autumn, that he will proceed with the Third Reading of the Maastricht Bill in the spring of next year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have made the position perfectly clear about our proposals on the Bill. What is now clear as a result of the vote last week is that there is no way in which the Government can in future rely in any sense on the Labour Party supporting the passage of the Maastricht Bill. We cannot be certain that they will do that. Their vote and their tactics last week make that perfectly clear.

    That means that to ensure the passage of the Bill, which must be my first priority, I must win the arguments in the House of Commons and that will mean encountering a great degree of opposition from some and it will mean countering at length the arguments of those opposed to the Maastricht Treaty. They have already put down a large number of amendments so it will be a lengthy process and I would not expect the Committee Stage to be finished by May but we have said repeatedly that we are determined to ratify the Bill during this session of Parliament and I am happy to repeat that today. I believe we will have the Third Reading some time after the expected date in May of the Danish referendum and I expect to ratify the Bill during this session of Parliament.

    QUESTION (Michael Insted – BBC German Service):

    Did you discuss at all the question of Britain taking more refugees from Bosnia?

    May I also put a question to the German delegation? Are you satisfied so far with the number of refugees accepted by the UK?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will ask the Foreign Secretary to respond to that. Although the Chancellor and I discussed it, the Foreign Secretary and Herr Kinkel had more lengthy discussions on the matter as indeed did the Home Secretary.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    You may have followed what the Home Secretary announced last week, that after a period during which many thousands of Yugoslays have come here but in an uncoordinated way to the UK, there is now a visa regime except for Slovenia and Croatia and we have expressed our willingness to accept particular numbers of people identified by the humanitarian agencies as requiring a home beginning with an offer of 150 – that is heads of families so maybe 4/500 with their dependants – an offer which has not yet been taken up but which we are discussing. Over and above that, we have expressed our willingness on that basis to do more.

    At the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday, Klaus Kinkel, sitting at the end there, made a very eloquent plea from Germany that all of us in the Community and the Americans, Canadians and other friends should rally round and make it clear that between ourselves we are willing to accept those 6,000 who have so far been identified from the camps as requiring places outside the former Yugoslavia and we as Presidency are now taking that up and identifying country by country who is able to do what.

    HERR KINKEL:

    Perhaps from the German side I may add that the Twelve discussed the problem of refugees from the former Yugoslavia very intensively in the last few weeks and also the question of the camps.

    As regards the refugees – and this is no secret – we certainly had to bear the main burden in the Federal Republic. We had to take more than 135,000 refugees and at last Monday’s Council we said that in any case we want to take on those people from the camps in Bosnia and other areas before Christmas who have to live under terrible conditions there. According to indications received by the Red Cross, there are about 6,000 people. As Europeans, we have committed ourselves to taking these people and for the Federal Government, with the help of the Federal Chancellor I have been able to say that we will be able to take 1,000 of the 6,000. I think this is a humanitarian gesture, to see that before Christmas, before the winter comes, the camps are emptied if this is at all possible.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton – Sky TV):

    John Smith, the Labour leader, today told a meeting of the TUC that Britain opting out of the Social Chapter of the Maastricht would mean that British workers were better placed to compete with the Taiwanese than with the Germans. As right-of-centre politicians who disagree on this matter, I wonder if you could both comment on that observation.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen what Mr. Smith said but if Mr. Smith is so concerned about the Social Chapter or indeed any part of European development I am rather puzzled that he should have asked his party to vote against the motion in the House of Commons last week. There is no doubt that he put at very great risk the future progress of the Bill. As it happens he lost the division and lost a great degree of credibility, not only at home but in Europe.

    The Labour Party said they had consulted their European socialist colleagues about how they voted. It turned out that Mr. Cunningham had had a conversation with Jean Pierre Kot [phon], the leader of the socialists in the European Parliament, but if that was the position it is rather odd that Jean Pierre Kot subsequently seems to have contradicted him by making the point that the Labour. Party were playing with fire in the way in which they voted on Maastricht so John Smith may be going to a great deal of trouble to try and save his reputation but it is a little late. He threw his European reputation overboard in his tactical vote in the House of Commons a week ago.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor, may I put a question to try and overcome a few misunderstandings concerning monetary policy and currency policy.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL

    Well don’t write a book about it!

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    Two months ago, from the German side we heard that Great Britain had been made an offer that they could devalue together with the Italians on the 12/13 September. Mr. Kurda said that, the Secretary of State. On the British side, it was said that no offer was made. Could you perhaps help us and say which version corresponds to the truth?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I can’t help you.

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    I beg your pardon. You were involved with the Bundesbank on the matter.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I still can’t help you, I am afraid, in spite of that. The question is simple. I don’t think there is any point in discussing the past weeks in this context and continuing the discussion which won’t get you any further anyway. All sorts of statements have been made and all sorts of statements have not been made. I see no point in now writing a history book about it. When you are pensioned off and me too, then we will get together and write a third book about the subject together.

    QUESTION (Nick Gowing – Channel 4 News):

    Chancellor, you indicated earlier that you had full understanding for the British position. How much do you fear that the longer the debate about Maastricht goes on, the less the will and the public support there will be for whatever emerges eventually?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I don’t think so. We have all learned more. I have too. The Maastricht Treaty is a milestone in the century towards the development of Europe and certainly as Heads of Government and others have to realise perhaps we have done too little in the field of psychology to really make people understand what a tremendous development this is and even in politics one can learn from the mistakes one has made.

    If I look at the asset side, I must say it is a tremendous thing that at this moment we are capable of going towards this development in Europe, that Europe is growing together, that we will be strengthened vis-a-vis other combinations in the world. In eight years it will be the year 2000 and that will undoubtedly see that in the North American area, the United States and Canada associated with Mexico will have a tremendous region of association. You will see associations like that too in Latin American. We see similar things in Asia if we just refer to Korea and Japan. We act in Europe as if the world is simply passing us by. The achievement at Maastricht of monetary union, economic union and political union really pulls the people of Europe together. It is time that we understand that we are not in 1902 but in 1992 and we have to draw the conclusions from that.

    Our British friends have their own history and their own traditions, and we only have to look at the history of the British Parliament which is not without reason called the “Mother of Parliaments” to see that we have to take account of this. The essence of friendship is that we make concessions to each other and the basis of my friendship with John Major is that we aim at helping each other, not obstructing each other. That is my view of European solidarity and European policies.

    QUESTION (Hella Pik – The Guardian):

    You have both today emphasised the unity of purpose and have obviously sought to minimise any differences. What Chancellor Kohl has said is somewhat in contradiction to what was said in Bonn on the eve of your visit here. You and your Foreign Minister were reported as being rather critical of the British delay in the ratification debate. I am just wondering whether you feel you have for presentational purposes today emphasised the positive and ignored the negative and whether you have any comments on that?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I don’t know who said that to you in Bonn. I didn’t say it and under the German constitution it is I who decides the policy line and nobody else. I am not sure if you read some sort of magazine on the subject but you should stop reading them I think.

    Such a statement was not made by me and neither legitimised by me. I don’t know who else could have said that in Bonn and that is all I have to say on the subject.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is much to add to that.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Interest Rates – 8 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on interest rates, made on 8th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you look at the level of interest rates now, it is not materially different from the average level of interest rates right the way through the 1980s. It feels different because the asset values have fallen but it is not different and people then say that the real rate of interest is quite high yet our real rate of interest is less than in Germany. For the first time since we joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism, our rate of interest has come to within 0.25 percent of the Germany interest rates for the first time in God knows how many years – more years than I care to remember.

    They say we are bound entirely by what happens to Germany, those people who oppose our present interest rates policy. I find that very odd. In the last twenty months since we joined, German interest rates have gone up by about 3%, sterling interest rates have come down by 5%. I think that is very odd. If we are tied dot and comma to everything that happens in Germany, I think people should explain why that should be so if that has happened. The point is it is not so and so I am suspicious of the one or two percent off interest rates to kick-start the economy argument. I know of no evidence that that is the case either in this country or in the evidence of what has happened elsewhere in the world.

    We will have to take interest rates down gradually as we can safely do so without damaging the exchange value of sterling and that is so in the Exchange Rate Mechanism or out of it.

  • 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.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Munich – 7 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Munich, held on Tuesday 7th July 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, the Americans are talking about a substantial new aid effort in Yugoslavia, would Britain join that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We had some general discussions last night about Yugoslavia but nothing concrete has been decided at all and I have no doubt we will return to that. But the principal topic of discussion this morning of course is the former Soviet Union.

    QUESTION:

    But on Yugoslavia.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have nothing to say about Yugoslavia at the moment, I am afraid, nothing whatsoever.

    QUESTION:

    What about GATT, there are reports that you are trying to unblock the log-jam, where do we stand now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think everyone would like to see some progress on the GATT agreement. Clearly if we wish to get world trade moving, the sooner we get a GATT agreement the better, and that is certainly a view that I have expressed and one that I will continue to express. But nobody should under-estimate the difficulties there are for some nations in actually securing an agreement. There is no chance of an agreement actually being reached over this weekend, there are many things and many interests not represented here. But I think what we can do is examine the difficulties, see which of those can best be unblocked most speedily and determine how we can go about that, and of course in private that is what we are all trying to do.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to raise this with President Mitterrand today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will have to raise a whole series of things with all the other Heads of Government, in a matter of discussion it will continue to be one, it would be surprising if we were not discussing that in the present circumstances.

    QUESTION:

    Would it be fair to say that you are now talking about delaying or slowing down the rate at which subsidies would be cut?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Subsidies for whom?

    QUESTION:

    In agricultural subsidies.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I am not going into the details of the discussions. I think there are three or four quite separate areas in GATT that still need to be determined and I strongly suspect they will only be determined collectively, they will not be picked off one by one.

    I am sure that conflicting interests will mean that that certainly is not the case. We will need a collective agreement which deals with all those matters at the same time, now at the moment they are being discussed. I do not think people should have expectations that it is all going suddenly and magically to be solved. It would be very agreeable if that could be the case but there are, as I say, many interests to be considered, many to be consulted, some not here at this particular summit. But I think it is an opportunity to examine the difficulties that exist and see if there is a better way to proceed to make sure we get the agreement we all know that we need and to get that agreement as speedily as possible.

    QUESTION:

    What will you say to many people in the West who say we have got rising unemployment, we have got economic difficulties, why on earth should we help the Russians who have been running a military state for so long?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a distinction between the difficulties that we face in the West, and they are real difficulties of course, and the difficulties that are faced in the former Soviet Union. They face the danger not of difficulties but of total, complete disintegration, chaos and collapse, that is the clear distinction. We, by we I mean the United Kingdom, have been offering special help for the former Soviet Union, especially Russia, and looking after their interests in negotiations with the IMF. We now have an agreement with the IMF and we will have the opportunity of discussing that this morning and discussing it further with Mr Yeltsin when he is here tomorrow. I think that will be a very valuable exchange.

  • PMQT – 18 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 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. Skinner : With only a few more bribing days left before the general election and in view of the fact that the House has been televised for more than two years, will the Prime Minister tell us whether he is prepared to take part in televised debates during the general election campaign with the Leader of the Opposition–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we hold televised debates in the House twice a week–

    Hon. Members : Frit!

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Robert B. Jones : Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to study the statement by the Bundesbank that Germany is now in recession and that it blames the fall in output in Germany on the world recession? Does not that nail the lie being put around that these circumstances are due not to world but to British recession?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend points out, the Bundesbank has said that the German economy is now in recession. That confirms the point that I have been making to the House for some time about the international slow-down and international difficulties. A number of countries are either in recession or experiencing a slow-down in activity. Germany, alas, is the latest country to reach a formal recession.

    Mr. Kinnock : Would the Prime Minister confirm that today’s figures show the biggest rise in long-term unemployment in 10 years, that 1.3 million people in Britain have been without work for more than six months and that 750,000 of those have been without work for more than a year? Against that background, does the Prime Minister still dare to say to those people and their families that their prolonged misery is a price well worth paying?

    The Prime Minister : No one has said that, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. This month’s increase in the numbers unemployed for a year or more is certainly extremely unwelcome, but the long-term unemployment level is about half what it was five years ago and long-term unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds is also half that level. Long-term unemployment among the over-50s has halved over the past four years. These figures are too high, but the only way to get them down permanently is to have the right structure of development in the economy : low inflation and stable exchange rates. That is what we are providing ; there is no easy way.

    Mr. Kinnock : But the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that this unemployment and recession are a price well worth paying. Can the Prime Minister really take any comfort from the fact that, bad as today’s figures are, they are slightly less bad than they were in the last Tory slump? Is he really trying to convince the people of Britain, as they tried to do then, that policies of this kind provide a basis for sustained recovery and sustained growth? British unemployment is rising faster than unemployment in any country in the rest of the European Community. We have a huge increase in long-term unemployed, and more job losses are being announced every week. All this is taking place while the Prime Minister has had his present job and while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is not it now obvious that Majorism is not working?

    The Prime Minister : I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that I have said no such thing, and neither in context has my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. As I said a moment ago, there is only one way to create long-term stable employment. The right hon. Gentleman implies that nothing is being done. I do not call halving inflation doing nothing. Last month it fell to just over 4 per cent. If that is doing nothing, what were the last Labour Government doing when inflation went up to 27 per cent ?

    Mr. Kinnock : The Prime Minister cannot correct the record to the extent of pretending that both he and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) have not said that today’s conditions, with all their misery, are not a price well worth paying. That is the first point. Secondly, the Prime Minister refers to the record over 13 years. In that 13 years manufacturing output under his Government in Britain has gone up less than 6 per cent. It has gone up by four, five and 10 times as much among our competitors, and the right hon. Gentleman is still not doing anything to bring Britain out of recession, to give us recovery. A Tory Government means permanent high unemployment.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman does not listen and he does not understand. I repeat : I have said no such thing and I invite him to withdraw. The House will know that he changed his allegation between his first and third questions. If he is really concerned about unemployment, why does he want to cripple British industry by bringing back flying pickets, by encouraging mass pickets, by returning trade union immunities, with all the difficulties that we saw in the 1960s and 1970s ? That would not produce growth and jobs. That would produce permanent slump, no jobs, no prospects, no hope for the future. Those are the policies that the right hon. Gentleman sets out before this nation.

    Mr. John Marshall : Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the decision to compensate those who contracted HIV as a result of treatment through the national health service is widely welcomed ? I thank him for a speedy and compassionate response. He knows the representation that I made with other colleagues only a fortnight ago.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. We made special provision for those with haemophilia and HIV because of the special circumstances that are apparent and because of the widespread representations that have been made to us. I hope that it will ease the difficulties of people who face such a tragic circumstance.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that there are only two facts that one needs to know to assess the Government’s real commitment to recovery? The first is that unemployment rose by 53,000 last Thursday and the second is that the Government cut their training budget by £171 million last Friday. How does the Prime Minister justify that?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that we have the largest training provision that this country has ever seen. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know what circumstances are necessary for long-term prosperity and jobs, and that they are basically low inflation and a stable economy, he ought to learn that speedily.

    Mr. Gorst : When my right hon. Friend is making arrangements for his business in the second week in April, will he please include a visit to Edgware general hospital, where he will find patients, members of staff and doctors highly satisfied with the changes that have taken place in the national health service?

    The Prime Minister : I shall be happy to visit that hospital. I think that the changes in the health service are increasingly being understood to be welcome and to be providing a better health service for the future. That is becoming increasingly understood within the health service–if not, alas, on the Opposition Benches.

     

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

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

    Mr. Patchett : The Government have increased prescription charges 14 times, and they did so just this week by twice the rate of inflation. Will the Prime Minister intervene to stop this disgraceful taxation of the sick- -yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : There are 100 million more free prescriptions this year than there were at the time of the last Labour Government. The number of people who pay for prescriptions has shrunk and shrunk, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He should stop trying to misrepresent policies.

     

    Q3. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Amess : Will my right hon. Friend agree to visit Basildon– [Interruption.]–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Come on.

    Mr. Amess : –the finest and most exciting town in the country? When my right hon. Friend does so, will he tell my constituents that there has been a record reduction in the number of strikes and that we now have the best figures for decades? Does he agree that such improvements are a key component in a strong economy and that they have been achieved through the Government’s industrial relations laws, which the Opposition parties wish to repeal?

    The Prime Minister : I shall be happy to visit my hon. Friend at Basildon either before or after the general election. He makes a good point. Indeed, the figures for 1991 are even better than those for 1990. There were fewer strikes last year than in any year since records began a century ago. That is essentially because of the change in labour relations and the encouragement that has been given for employers and the work force to work together.

     

    Q4. Mr. John Garrett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Garrett : Has the Prime Minister seen the prospectus from Pathfinders Repossessions plc, which is a company which proposes to buy repossessed homes at auction and then flog them off or rent them at a huge profit? I understand from the promoters that the project cannot fail because it qualifies for tax reliefs under the business expansion scheme. Does the Prime Minister find this proposition just plain squalid?

    The Prime Minister : The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman is no, I have not seen that prospectus. If the hon. Gentleman had wanted a detailed comment on it, he would have invited me to look at it before he asked his question. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Oppenheim : Has my right hon. Friend had the chance to study the document entitled “The Citizen’s Charter”, which was written in 1921 by Herbert Morrison, then secretary of the London Labour party? It states that the best way to improve public services is to increase competition. Does not that show that no amount of tacky red plastic roses, sharp suits and slick public relations can disguise the fact that, far from progressing, Labour is regressing?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it does show that. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the merits of competition. We now have another citizen’s charter that addresses the direct problems faced by the people of this country. The Opposition are so rattled about it that NALGO is spending £2 million to advertise against it.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mrs. Mahon : The Prime Minister does not seem to be aware of what is happening with prescription charges. May I draw to his attention the case of a constituent of mine, a Mr. Russell, who is paid just 6p more than the income support level? From 1 April, he will have to pay £3.75 a week for a prescription out of an income of £60.31. If that is not a tax on the sick, will the Prime Minister tell us what it is?

    The Prime Minister : One in three people are now entitled to free prescriptions, as opposed to one in six.

    There are far more prescriptions than ever before for which people no longer pay, and those who find themselves marginally above income support level have the option of acquiring a season ticket precisely to meet that problem.

     

    Q6. Mr. Moate : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Moate : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is an essential weapon in the battle against terrorism? Does he agree that all parties in the House should support its annual renewal, so that we can send the terrorists the clear message that they can never win?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir–and I believe that recent events reinforce that point. Without the renewal of the Act, the IRA would be free to march, recruit and raise funds anywhere in Great Britain. Its renewal is absolutely essential, not just as a clear message to the terrorists but as a vital part of our ability to safeguard the lives of our citizens. I hope that, in the light of all that has happened, the Opposition will change their policy on this occasion, and will support the renewal of the Act.

  • PMQT – 4 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir George Gardiner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 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.

    Sir George Gardiner : Does my right hon. Friend agree that to suggest that there is one kind of school that can cater for the needs of all kinds of pupils is an example of the naive theorising that has caused so many problems in education, which we are seeking to address today? Will he continue to press for diversity in education through grant-maintained schools, through city technology colleges and through local management of schools responsive to parents’ wishes?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the premise underlying my hon. Friend’s question. We will certainly continue to encourage diversity through grant-maintained schools, CTCs and locally managed schools, all of which give greater opportunity and choice to parents and pupils. We will continue to offer that choice.

    Mr. Kinnock : At the time when the Prime Minister said that if his policies

    “were not hurting, they were not working,”

    did he realise that those policies would cause the longest recession since the 1930s?

    The Prime Minister : We have taken action to ensure that we come out of this recession in a way that will ensure sustained recovery. As the Governor of the Bank of England said only yesterday, “the conditions are now in place to underpin a sustained recovery.”

    Mr. Kinnock : Having caused the longest recession since the 1930s, does the Prime Minister agree with the words of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said last month : “the policy would not have been different even if we had known the outcome.”?

    The Prime Minister : Caused the recession?–Did we cause it in the United States, in Sweden, in Japan, in Australia, in New Zealand ? If the right hon. Gentleman believes all that, he is certainly not capable of leading his party, let alone this country.

    Mr. Kinnock : There is no question of doubt that this Government caused the recession in this country. Since the Prime Minister made the statement that I quoted, nearly 1 million jobs have been lost, there have been over 100,000 repossessions and 80,000 businesses have been lost, in those two years. This Government caused the recession, they continued the recession, and now they have not got a clue how to get out of the recession.

    The Prime Minister : What the right hon. Gentleman has to say– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : What the right hon. Gentleman has to say is economic illiteracy. If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about recovery, what does he think that higher taxes would do to it ? What does he think that his jobs tax would do to it ? What does he think that his investment tax would do to it ? What does he think that his minimum wage would do to it ? The policies which the right hon. Gentleman pursues would mean perpetual recession for this country.– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Will hon. Members please settle down ?

     

    Chancellor Kohl

    Q2. Mr. Hunter : To ask the Prime Minister when he will next meet the Chancellor of Germany; and what issues he intends to discuss with him.

    The Prime Minister : Chancellor Kohl and I are in frequent contact by telephone to discuss matters of mutual interest. I expect to meet him again soon, but I have no immediate plans to do so.

    Mr. Hunter : Has my right hon. Friend noticed the extent to which the German economy has suffered from the worldwide slowdown and the fact that German output has decreased during the past two months for which figures are available? Does not that conclusively show that economic difficulties are not confined to the United Kingdom, as the Opposition try to claim?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend’s question is more apposite than he might have imagined. He is entirely right. I have noticed that fact, even if the Opposition have not. Again, the Governor of the Bank of England noted yesterday that the recession has proved unexpectedly persistent in north America and that in continental Europe, Japan and elsewhere economic activity has slowed and unemployment has begun to rise. Only the Opposition adopt their typical stance. They ignore other countries’ difficulties and concentrate solely on those in this country, to the damage of our interests.

    Mr. Radice : After the two opt-outs negotiated by the Prime Minister at Maastricht, does Chancellor Kohl still think that the Prime Minister is a good European?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman had better ask Chancellor Kohl that question. I have enjoyed the closest possible co-operation with Chancellor Kohl in the past year and I intend to continue to do so in the same capacity in years to come.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Lee : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Lee : The massive growth at Manchester airport since the Government have come to power–a 1,100 per cent. increase in fixed assets– has given a tremendous boost to the economy and pride of the north-west. Indeed, the north-south divide has now ceased to exist as an issue. When my right hon. Friend next has a free Saturday, will he fly up to Manchester, look at what has been achieved by the airport, and then pop over to Old Trafford to watch a first-class football side in action? It will win the first division championship, just as my right hon. Friend will certainly win the next general election.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not respond to one part of his question. Manchester airport, however, is a success story. It has benefited especially from the growth in the liberalisation of air services and, as a result, three times as many passengers now use the airport as when the Government came to office. That is a direct result of liberalisation introduced by the Government. The concept of a north-south divide was always too simplistic and sweeping. Many areas of prosperity and some of difficulty exist in each and every part of this country– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us have less barracking.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Cohen : Is the Prime Minister aware that, in my constituency of Leyton, unemployment has risen by 84 per cent. in the past 18 months? As last night the Governor of the Bank of England backtracked over the duration of the slump, will the Prime Minister now institute an urgent programme of recovery? Failing that, will he explain to my unemployed constituents why the Government consider them a “price worth paying”?

    The Prime Minister : Clearly, the hon. Gentleman was not listening a few moments ago when I quoted directly the Governor of the Bank of England saying that the conditions necessary to underpin a sustained recovery are now in place.

    Mr. Allason : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a review is to be undertaken of the use by the security and intelligence agencies of informants and other sources? When he receives that final report, will he bear in mind the fact that the security intelligence agencies rely on the use of informants, and the intelligence that they receive will never be any good unless a measure of protection can be granted to those sources?

    The Prime Minister : We do, of course, constantly keep these matters under review and I believe that it is important that we continue to do so.

     

    Q5. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Winnick : Is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that since the Government came into office in 1979 nearly 2.5 million full-time jobs in manufacturing have been lost, 34 jobs for every hour this wretched Government have been in office? In view of the devastation, the unemployment and the misery caused to our people, is it any wonder that the Prime Minister is so reluctant to hold the general election?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is joining the Opposition trend of seeking to talk down what manufacturing and other industries are doing. He should remember that export volumes of manufactured goods grew faster than in the United States throughout the 1980s, that manufacturing grew faster than in France or Italy during the 1980s, and that Britain exports a larger proportion of its national product than Japan, a point recognised by even the Scottish National party.

    Mrs. Peacock : Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending congratulations to a Yorkshire manufacturing company, Spring Ram plc, which at the end of the month will open two new factories in my constituency, creating 400 new jobs, which is at present building two new factories in Barnsley which will create 400 new jobs, and which has a plan to create 1,100 new jobs in Bradford over the next four years?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to send my congratulations to my hon. Friend’s constituents. There are, of course, many other companies up and down the country which are similarly investing and growing, and laying the foundation for prosperity in the 1990s.

     

    Q6. Mr. Carr : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Carr : Can the Prime Minister tell the House how he squares his vision of a classless Britain with the experience of a constituent of mine from Fulwood, who was told last May that she needed a hip replacement but that she would have to wait 14 months for the operation under the national health service, and who was told that she could have had the operation immediately had she been able to cough up £4,300?

    The Prime Minister : There were no hip replacements available just a few years ago. It is now a relatively routine operation available in the national health service. Hip replacements are becoming more widely available month after month. That is the direction in which we must go to provide the best health service, the best opportunities and the best element of the classless society that I have talked about.

    Mr. Norris : Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the last thing that business needs is for business rates to be brought back under the control of uncapped, loony Labour authorities who will send rates sky rocketing, as they did during the early 1980s? Will he give the House a pledge that such a crazy proposal will never be included in a manifesto issued by the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. It is well known to every hon. Member that under the old system, councils could put up rates by more than the rate of inflation. They did and, among other evils, they forced many jobs out of inner city areas by doing so. Those who doubt that might remember the rate rise of Labour-controlled Ealing council of 57 per cent. in 1987. They might also recollect the wriggling of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on television the other day on precisely that problem. It would be a problem, he said. It would be a problem not just for the Labour party but for business men up and down the country.

     

    Q7. Mr. Andrew Welsh : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 February.

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

    Mr. Welsh : Since the Government have supported independence in Russia, Lithuania and other parts of the world, when the people of Scotland democratically and peacefully vote for independence, what will the Government say to them?

    The Prime Minister : This Union has served both Scotland and England well, and I would not wish to see it undermined. The proposals of the Labour party, the Liberal Democratic party and the Scottish National party would undermine that relationship that has served us so well in the Union. Devolution is not just a matter for Scotland ; it is a matter for the whole United Kingdom. If an Assembly were given tax-raising powers, how would that fit in with the other fiscal arrangements? What would the increased taxation do to prosperity in Scotland? The hon. Gentleman should put a fair proposal before the Scottish people, not the half-baked one that he has made.

    Mr. Gregory : Will my right hon. Friend– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has not yet asked a question of the Prime Minister.

    Mr. Gregory : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue as the party of denationalisation, and confirm to the electorate of York that the Conservative party will not take away the shares of those who have invested in Northern Electric, British Telecom and other such denationalised companies?

    The Prime Minister : I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend. The denationalisation programme has been good not only for the consumer, but for share owning and the improvement of both investment and wealth in this country. We believe in those propositions and we shall continue to support them.

     

    Q8. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 January.

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

    Mr. Jones : I am sure that the Prime Minister will have enjoyed reading the Western Mail last Saturday, where he will have seen the results of a telephone survey showing that the people of Wales now support the setting up of a Welsh Parliament by a margin of four to one. When will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the aspirations of the Welsh and Scottish people cannot be sidelined for ever, and when will Parliament act?

    The Prime Minister : I seem to recall that there was a referendum once before on devolution in Wales when there appeared to be a majority in favour. But the reality was that the referendum showed that there was no majority, and the people of Wales recognised that it would be in the best interests of their country and the United Kingdom to sustain the present arrangements.

  • PMQT – 23 January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Harry Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

    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. Barnes : The Prime Minister has cut 110,000 training places in the past year. Furthermore, training schemes do not produce the skills or the qualifications for the jobs that are needed in Britain at this time. Is that because, as the Prime Minister said in another interview with Sue Lawley, from his point of view qualifications “are wholly useless”?

    The Prime Minister : Despite the unfavourable economic climate, both youth training and employment training continue to help young and unemployed people on a very substantial scale to go into further training and further education. Very large numbers of young people are being helped. We are investing enormous sums in training, in enterprise and in vocational education–two and a half times as much, after taking account of inflation, as was invested by the Labour party when it was last in government.

     

    Romford (Visit)

    Q2. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to make an official visit to Romford.

    The Prime Minister : I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country, and very much hope to include Essex among them.

    Sir Michael Neubert : Will my right hon. Friend be assured that any time that he cares to come to Romford, Essex men and Essex women will throng the streets in their thousands? In the meantime, will he give my constituents an assurance that he welcomes the report of the three wise men on primary education, and that the Government fully subscribe to the importance of the three Rs? Will he confirm that it is our top priority to get back to the basics in education and to sweep away the leftist progressive teaching methods that, having been put to the test, have failed?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend couches his invitation to visit Essex in irresistible terms.

    The report that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State published yesterday is extremely important. It challenges some of the teaching methods that have been used in recent years and it suggests that schools should concentrate on commonsense, practical teaching. I believe that that is what parents want and that it is the best way to ensure that children are taught the essentials. We certainly hope that both schools and teachers will adopt the proposals in the report.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Taylor : The Prime Minister will be well aware of the appalling environmental problems in the Fal estuary arising from the water pollution after the closure of the Wheal Jane mine. I do not think that people in Cornwall want to allocate blame at the moment, but they do want to ensure that the environmental clean-up is carried out both in the short term and the long term without hold-ups. Will the Prime Minister ensure that there are no financial problems at any stage in ensuring that the long-term and short-term clean-ups take place?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we set up the National Rivers Authority specifically to respond in the first instance to the sort of pollution incidents to which he refers–this one is a very serious incident. The NRA has been closely monitoring the situation since the mine closed. It had developed contingency plans before the incident and put them into effect when water in the mine began to overflow. I am sure that the NRA considers that it will be able to deal with the problem with the resources that it has.

     

    Q4. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports from the German chambers of commerce which show that German industry has invested £7.8 billion in this country in recent years? Does not that demonstrate that low taxation, low inflation and good industrial relations are the basis for strong investment, including inward investment; and does it not also show that the future of this country is excellent under this Government?

    The Prime Minister : I have seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I have also seen the important comments of the CBI, which set out the fact that Britain now attracts nearly half of all the inward investment from Japan that comes to the European Community. I believe that, by investing here, German and Japanese companies and those of other countries have shown their confidence in the British economy. It is a shame that some of the gloom and doom-mongers in this country do not share that confidence.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister confirm that under his Government the British economy is in its longest recession since the second world war?

    The Prime Minister : I will confirm to the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure that he will be pleased to hear what the European Community has to say, that the United Kingdom is the only country where signals of a sustained economic recovery are discernible, by contrast with a tendency towards gradual slackening of growth continuing in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal.

    Mr. Kinnock : Slightly closer to home, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British chambers of commerce today report that this is the seventh consecutive quarter in which the United Kingdom economy has suffered from recession, with levels of economic activity continuing to decline? Is not it clear that the recession caused by the Prime Minister’s policies is continuing because of the Prime Minister’s paralysis?

    The Prime Minister : The British chambers of commerce are clearly wrong about the seventh consecutive quarter. That would imply that the recession started in the second quarter of 1990, which it clearly did not, because output rose between the first and second quarters of 1990.

    I notice also that the president of the chambers of commerce said that British industry and commerce were on

    “an improving trend of slowly and steadily climbing out of the recession”.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will not the Prime Minister refer to the report and listen to the voices of business and commerce from all over the country when they say :

    “A worsening position on employment expectations,”–

    higher job losses–

    “and a major down-grading of business confidence, however, give no cause for comfort in this survey”?

    How can the Prime Minister be so complacent and so indolent when he is receiving advice that something now needs to be done?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening. I quoted from the president of that particular group of chambers of commerce. The report itself says :

    “an improving trend of slowly and steadily climbing out of the recession.”

    The right hon. Gentleman should look at other surveys and forecasters. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund both forecast recovery. What is equally clear among business men is that they have no enthusiasm whatever for a Labour Government. A survey of the top hundred British companies showed that 63 per cent. of them believed that recession would get worse under a Labour Government, and not one of them believed that it would get better.

    Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop : Will my right hon. Friend find time today to tell the House of the decision made yesterday to restore to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia the gold deposited for safe keeping in the Bank of England but misappropriated by the then Labour Government with the support in the Division Lobby of the leader and Chief Whip of the Liberal party at that time?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that when I met President Landsbergis yesterday I was able to indicate that we would be returning the gold. As the House well knows, the Labour Government in 1967 ordered the gold to be sold. The then Conservative Opposition roundly opposed that, and I am delighted that this Conservative Government have been able to correct that smear of dishonour.

     

    United Nations

    Q5. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.

    The Prime Minister : I shall chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on 31 January.

    Mr. Cryer : Will the Prime Minister confirm that 140 nations have signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, including Tory Canada? Why cannot this Tory Government honour their pledge under the treaty to get rid of nuclear weapons, which will mean the withdrawal of Polaris–which is literally cracking up–and the saving of £10 billion on Trident, to be spent on the national health service to care for lives instead of threatening them with mass murder? If nuclear non-proliferation- –

    Hon. Members : More, more.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. That is very unseemly.

    Mr. Cryer : Quite so, Mr. Speaker.

    If nuclear non-proliferation is good enough for the rest of the world, why is not it good enough for us?

    The Prime Minister : We seek to promote non-proliferation and disarmament, and that will be one of the matters to be discussed at the United Nations Security Council meeting that I shall chair next week. But I must say to the hon. Gentleman who suggests that it would be appropriate at present for this country to scrap its nuclear weapons and Trident that to do so would leave the country wholly defenceless. That may be the view of the hon. Gentleman. It may even be the view of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in their secret hearts. It is not the right policy for this country, it is not the policy of the Government and I hope that the Opposition will make clear how many of their members support that policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament rather than a policy of secure defences for this country.

    Mr. Bellingham : When my right hon. Friend visits the United Nations, will he raise the issue of the RAF aircrew who were shot down over the Gulf, some of whom came from west Norfolk? They were tortured, humiliated and abused in gross contravention of the Geneva convention. Is it time that the perpetrators of the crime were brought to justice?

    The Prime Minister : I strongly share the view expressed by my hon. Friend. I do not think that it is a matter for discussion at the special Security Council meeting next week ; it is certainly a matter which remains on our agenda.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Douglas : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Douglas : The Prime Minister’s view of an expanded European Community, composed of many states in eastern Europe, together with existing members, is extremely attractive, but will he contrast that with the instability within the United Kingdom because the aspirations of a nationwide Scotland are frustrated by its being unable to secure its independence and membership of the Community? Will he take steps to have that issue ventilated in a multi-question referendum of the people, which could perhaps be held in harmony with the general election?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he had to say about the European Community. That is the right way forward for this country, the European Community and the wider Europe which I hope in due course will join the Community. The hon. Gentleman spoke about devolution. The Union has served Scotland and England well. In terms of a debate, he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has called for debates in the Scottish Grand Committee and I hope that everyone will contribute to them.

     

    Q7. Mr. Mans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Mans : Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to increase the top limit on national insurance contributions because of the plight in which that would place many of my constituents and people in neighbouring Blackpool who earn under £15,000 a year but during the holiday season earn more than £400 a week?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will need no such encouragement. The policy suggested by my hon. Friend would hit many people on modest incomes who have bonus or overtime earnings and who occasionally earn above £390 a week. Such an impost would be quite contrary to the policies of the Government and the Conservative party and we shall not introduce any such policy.