The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Japan

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Tokyo – 9 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference, held in Tokyo on Friday 9th July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think this week we have had a productive meeting in Tokyo. To be frank, the results are better than I anticipated when I came and better I think than most people expected. Let me just touch very briefly on the main issues without repeating the communiques and then open up the floor to the questions that you may have.

    I think on the market access package it is clearly a significant step, it does mean that we are now open to return the talks back to Geneva on a multilateral basis, there is still a great deal to be done, I do not hide that from anyone, but I think it does reopen a realistic possibility of a satisfactory outcome towards the end of this year. I think people often tend to forget how much wider these particular trade talks are than any we have seen before. That does correspondingly mean the prize of them being successful is that much greater, though the price potentially to be paid, were we to fail to reach an agreement, is also one I hope that will provide a substantial impetus for everyone to make whatever sacrifices may be necessary to ensure we get a satisfactory outcome.

    I think this summit has acted as a catalyst, it was always likely that it would and I am delighted that that is how it turned out.

    If I could just say a word about the economic discussions we had and the economic communique. The underlying message I think is quite clear, we need to break down the barriers to growth and the barriers to jobs, that was a theme in the discussions the European Community had at Copenhagen, it has been echoed very satisfactorily here in Tokyo this week.

    With the exception of Japan, all of the countries represented here have very substantial budget deficits, bigger than is desirable I think in every case. We spent some time discussing that, I think there is a recognition that those deficits need to be reduced and that all of us need to keep social costs within the bounds of what we can afford. This is not just a particular problem in the United Kingdom, it is a problem that it was evident in the discussions is felt right across the G7. It will mean difficult decisions I suspect in each of those countries but they are decisions that are going to be necessary. Provided people understand what lies behind them and what the impact of them will be, I think people would prefer those home truths rather than empty promises.

    On the summit itself, we have had some useful innovations this year and I would like to congratulate Prime Minister Miyazawa upon them. It has had rather less pomp than we have sometimes been accustomed to on these occasions and I certainly welcome the fact that that is the case. We will have even less pomp, I trust, in future.

    I made further proposals for reshaping the summit process, they have been accepted, most of them, and we are proposing to make it a good deal more informal in future, there will be much less time preparing documents, much more time in really frank and informal discussion between the Heads of Government. I think that is welcome, it may be there are yet more reforms to be made and perhaps we will see how next year’s meeting in Naples goes before returning afresh to that particular matter.

    On the political declaration, we spent some time on Bosnia and non-proliferation and I think there is a very satisfactory statement there. We agreed that Iran, Iraq and Libya all pose serious problems for the international community. I was delighted at the backing for constitutional talks in South Africa and returned to a theme I have mentioned before, the desirability of lifting sanctions on South Africa soon to give them access to the international financial institutions. They still have a birth rate growth of around 3 percent, no economic growth at all, and the impact of that combination of factors is very damaging indeed for many millions of the poorest of people in South Africa.

    On Russia we have a substantial meeting this afternoon with President Yeltsin. I met him over breakfast, he certainly was very relaxed and in very good form. He feels he is making good progress in reshaping the political system, he understands there is still a substantial way to go to complete the new draft constitution and convene new parliamentary elections. But there is no doubt he is a good deal more confident about matters after his remarkable referendum victory some while ago.

    We talked about arrangements for stepping up Russia’s political dialogue both with the European Community and with the seven summit countries. At Copenhagen a week or so ago I sought and obtained the agreement of our European Community partners for twice yearly bilateral summits with President Yeltsin, I think he was very pleased with that, certainly he proposes to take up that particular offer. And I suggested this morning that we should this afternoon invite President Yeltsin to join us in Naples next year at the end of the formal G7 for a further G7 plus 1 discussion on the same basis as this year and that offer will be made to President Yeltsin this afternoon and I have no doubt he will accept it.

    We spent some time on free trade, some time on other matters that perhaps I will raise only in questions if you invite me to do so. We have agreed a substantial new programme to help privatisation in Russia, it amounts to 3 billion, it is a privatisation and restructuring programme and I think that will be very well received this afternoon.

    One matter I raised that is not in the communique, I raised it at a late stage but it is not necessarily a matter for the communique, is a letter that all of the participants at the summit have had from Mr Shevardnadze. The position in Georgia is desperate, not just the war but very dire humanitarian problems as well. I think we do need to encourage both Russia and Georgia. with United Nations support, to have yet another look at finding a solution to the problems of Adhardzia [phon], it is important they do so, it would open up the way for the despatch of United Nations observers. Firstly there is the question of trying to mitigate the fighting, but there is also the question of a severe danger of starvation and a dramatic lack of medical and other equipment in Georgia. I raised that this morning, I now think it is probable that the European Community and others will be despatching some assistance to Georgia fairly speedily, I have no doubt myself that that is badly needed.

    Just finally, if I may, a word about the bilateral relationship with Japan. The Japanese government have invited me to return in September for a bilateral visit. We are keen to enhance our political relationship with Japan, it is in very good shape now, it has been improving dramatically over recent years, we have thriving trade, I think that is going to be boosted by the removal of the tariff on Scotch whisky, there are internal tariffs as well, perhaps they also may decline over time. British and Japanese companies have been working together in projects in a number of companies. When I come back to Tokyo in September I propose to bring with me a mission of very senior businessmen and leaders of high technology companies, that will be led by Michael Perry of Unilever but there will be a number of other very high profile British businessmen with me as well.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, the summit declaration includes a commitment to reform the United Nations, are you now prepared to see Japan and possibly Germany as permanent members of the Security Council?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I welcome the debate on the Security Council reform and we fed in our comments to the Secretary General of the UN. I am happy to make the position entirely clear. We are certainly not against change either in the UN or in the Security Council. What the debate is about is about enlarging the membership of the Security Council, including its permanent membership. The permanent membership of any member, including the United Kingdom, is not of course in question. The main concern that we have is to maintain the effectiveness of the working of the Council. It has over the past 2 or 3 years been working with, I think most people would say, an unprecedented degree of consensus, nobody wants to damage that, to enable the Council to respond satisfactorily to a whole range of regional crises — Kuwait, self-evidently, Cambodia, Somalia, Bosnia – and nobody wishes to damage that degree of consensus. That said, it is going to be a difficult debate. There are many aspirants who would like a permanent seat, agreement will be difficult to reach and particularly difficult if we are to reach it without damaging the work that the Council does.

    I think that debate should take place, I welcome that. There are a number of countries who by virtue of their global interests, you have mentioned Germany, you have mentioned Japan, by virtue of their global interests, their contributions to international security, that will be interested in seeking a permanent seat. That carries with it obligations, peace keeping of course is one obligation that it will tend to carry with it. I am very pleased to see the steps being taken in Germany to amend the constitution, that would allow full German participation. I welcome the statement by the Japanese that they are prepared to do all they can to discharge their obligations to the Security Council. Now if agreement can be reached on these points, I suspect those countries could be among the beneficiaries of reform but it would have to be on the basis of their playing a full part in Security Council activities, including peace keeping.

    So the simple straightforward answer is I am certainly not opposed to reform, I think it has to be the right reform and it has to be on the right basis. That debate has started, I think it will go on for some time, but I welcome it.

    QUESTION (Peter Jay, BBC):

    If there had been no Economic Summit, what difference would that have made to the ordinary man and woman in the street, apart from saving the Japanese taxpayer a lot of money?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not here to speak for the Japanese taxpayer, I have enough trouble with my own taxpayers, I will leave others to speak for that. I think the catalytic effect of this meeting on the trade talks was clearly very important. I think also the degree to which it clarified international problems, the deficit is one I would stress most obviously, was also very useful. But also it clarified the contribution collectively that the participants can make to restoring some measure of growth across the world economy.

    If I could pick out the points of emphasis: agreement in Japan to the need for fiscal stimulus to improve Japanese demand, I think that will be very helpful; the reiteration by the United States of dealing with their fiscal deficit is a substantial contribution that they can make; and in Europe of course the renewed commitment by the Europeans collectively that there is a need for a decline in the present level of interest rates. I think the combination of those factors, brought together so that everyone can see the extent to which they interlink in restoring confidence and growth of the world economy, is very useful.

    So the word I would offer, if you wanted a single word, would be jobs, because 7 think it is the combination of those factors that restores confidence, will I trust restore growth, and with it, although there is not an umbilical relationship between growth and jobs, we are not going to get: jobs without growth. Providing we get growth we will have continued investment and I hope we will be able to take some of the 23 million G7 unemployed citizens off that list of being unemployed and back into work.

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, can you please tell us what you discussed with Mr. Yeltsin as far as trade access is concerned and also can you tell us how much of the privatisation package is actually new money and also how much of it is going to be equity rather than loans?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we will set out the details of the privatisation package after we have given it to President Yeltsin and discussed it with him this afternoon. It is a mixture of redirecting existing resources and new money – it is a mixture of the two.

    On the trade aspect, we did spend some time talking about trade this morning. The objective, not obtainable in the short-term, must be free trade between Russia and the rest of the world. We would like to see Russia join the GATT – I think that also is an objective we have. The Chancellor of the Exchequer joined me for the breakfast with President Yeltsin and as we made clear this morning, the restructuring of the Russian economy has some way to go before we can make free trade a reality.

    Free trade imposes obligations on Russia as well as advantages for Russia. They would certainly need to remove some of the quite extraordinary subsidies they have in many parts of their industry. President Yeltsin accepted that; that is the direction in which he wishes to go. As he begins to make moves on subsidies, I hope the western countries generally will begin to increasingly open their markets and move towards a completely free trade option. What clearly is patently silly over time is for the West to continue to provide financial resources to Russia whilst at the same time closing their markets to Russian exports which would enable them to diminish their need for those same financial. resources.

    I found it a very productive discussion. President Yeltsin invited me to go back to Russia – we are looking at dates – and one of the issues we will certainly discuss then is trade.

    QUESTION (Japanese Newspaper):

    Could you tell me why you are so eager to reform the summit? Secondly, when you met Mr. Myazawa, when you promised to come to Japan again, did you say that he was going to see you again?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I look forward to seeing him again. I have seen him many times in the past, I look forward to seeing him many times in the future.
    Why reform the summit? At its simplest, because it is far too bureaucratic. It is too bureaucratic, it is too pre-cooked.

    There are several advantages in a summit like this – some of them are tangible, some of them are less tangible. The tangible results are some of the things I was talking about a few minutes ago and I won’t reiterate that. The intangible advantage of a summit is the extent to which the leaders of the industrialised nations get to know one another much better. When there is a problem, when there is a crisis, it is much easier to be able to pick up the phone and talk to someone you know, you have met, you trust, whose mind processes you understand. Also I think the informality of discussions – we had a very informal discussion over dinner on the first evening, very informal, very wide-ranging and I think everyone learned a great about all the other participants as a result of that discussion.

    Often when one comes together in these meetings the sort of thing one ought to discuss is not the issue that needs a decision tomorrow but the direction of policy perhaps over very many years. That is not a matter for headlines the next day or the day after. There is an immediacy about the news for these days; nobody these days runs large stories about how G7 leaders might have contemplated what the world would look like in twenty years’ time, there is not a lot of space in the press for that, they are more concerned about what actually happened today. Informality and informal discussions will enable those wider discussions to take place as well.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you were talking about home truths earlier on.

    There is a Gallup poll in today’s “Telegraph” which shows Labour on 43, Liberals on 26 and the Conservatives on 24, your own rating is down to 19% which is the lowest ever in Gallup. Why do you think the dissatisfaction at home with the Government is focused on you so personally and at the end of a week when you have achieved some widely-acknowledged good results here? Aren’t you going to feel like packing it in if your rating goes down any more?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Politics is personalised – I think that is the nature of life not just in the United Kingdom but all over the world – much more personalised than ever it has been. I think that is part of the baggage people have to get used to. I don’t think one needs to let it necessarily worry oneself.
    I seem to recall during the last election answering an awful lot of questions about opinion polls. I also seem to recall what the election result was like and none of the opinion polls remotely got near to the result as it actually turned out to be when people had to make their decision.
    I understand people’ s concerns at the moment. It has been a rough old twelve months economically but if I had to said to you the evening after the election last year that fifteen months further on we would have inflation at 1.25%, interest rates at 6%, exports booming, a substantial shift in European policy towards our direction and we would have had four successive months in which unemployment fell without unemployment reaching 3 million let alone the 3.5 million most experts were predicting, I think you would have probably raised an eyebrow and suggested I think again but when you strip away lots of the short-term sensational matters that have dominated people’s interest in the United Kingdom over much of the last year, that is the reality of what has happened.
    The other reality of what has happened is that a complete parliamentary programme has gone through the House of Commons and very soon will be entirely through the House of Lords. If that same opinion poll had said what had Parliament been concentrating on this year I bet a huge proportion of people would have said: “Oh! They have done nothing except Maastricht and the European debate!” but in fact there have been a very large number of substantial reforming pieces of legislation through the House of Commons so I am not overly concerned about opinion polls.

    SAME MAN:

    Do you ever feel like packing it up?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Do I look like it?

    QUESTION (PASS News Agency, Russsia):

    Prime Minister, were the respective leaders unanimous in their wish to meet Mr. Yeltsin in Naples and what is your personal opinion about the transfer from G7 to G8?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer to the first question is yes, we were all completely unanimous. There was no shred of dissent about the desirability of Mr. Yeltsin coming to Naples next year or about inviting him now.

    I think the formula of G7+1 is an appropriate formula for the time being. The G7 are the largest industrialised nations in the world. At the moment, Russia does not fall into that category so I think it is appropriate G7+1 but Russia is a vitally important nation politically and in every other way and the G7 leaders think it is both appropriate and in our interests as well as in Russia’s interests to have this regular and annual dialogue.

    QUESTION (Anthony Rowley, Business Times and Oxford Analytica):

    Prime Minister, how seriously should we take this statement in paragraph 7 of the Economic Declaration that the G7 have agreed that no recourse should be made to initiatives and arrangements that threaten to undermine the multilateral open trading system? Presumably the search, for instance, for a framework agreement between the United States and Japan will continue to go forward.

    Secondly, I wonder what you make of Japan’s unwillingness at this stage to see an indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you should take it seriously, I think the desirability to move towards an open trading relationship is very widespread and I think the importance of that can scarcely be overstated. It often surprises me when I talk to people around the world, the extent to which they do not realise the shackles that still remain on free trade. One of the great advantages of the market access package that the quad produced the other day was the scale of the reduction in many of the tariffs but in many cases it still isn’t abolition of the tariffs. We have a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I think “General Agreement” is a rather informal position – I think it was intended to be temporary at the time and has never properly been formalised. I hope that we will be able to move to a more formal multilateral trade organisation as part of these particular talks. I think that would be a great advantage if we are able to do that. There still seem to be differing views on that but I certainly hope we can achieve that.

    Regarding your second question, I think that is a question for Mr. Miyazawa, not me.

    QUESTION (Chris Butler, Daily Express):

    If modesty will permit, would you describe what you think was Britain’s main contribution both to the summit and to the communique?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    How long have you got?

    QUESTION (Chris Butler, Daily Express):

    Briefly.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You are asking for two things that are mutually incompatible, firstly to set out what we have done and secondly to tell you briefly – the two things are incompatible.

    If you look at the contributions – and you actually saw the speech never mind the communiques at Copenhagen last week and here – you will notice a very substantial similarity in the broad economic argument that I advanced at Copenhagen that is also here. I don’t claim to be the only person who holds that view but I certainly advanced it forcibly in Copenhagen and forcibly again here, the question of open markets and a whole range of supply-side reforms.

    No-one is seriously arguing these days – with the possible exception of the British Labour Party – that large fiscal expenditure is the way to lift countries out of recession and to put lots of people back to work. On the back of the fiscal deficits that people have, nobody is really advancing that argument.

    The opening up of markets, of supply side reforms, they are something we have argued for for some time now accepted in the Copenhagen communique, accepted here. That is a very substantial point.

    On some of the smaller points since you simply asked for an illustration, I suppose the summit reform is one illustration; the decision to invite President Yeltsin now is another initiative that came from the British; the decision to provide more help to Georgia, although it came last in the communique, is another British initiative. There are others as well. I will give you a full list later if you like.

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds, BBC):

    If the situation in Bosnia deteriorates, will you cut and run or will you intervene more strongly?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think one can make decisions of what one would do in Bosnia until you see what actually has happened on the ground. We have made it perfectly clear that we want to stay there and assist with humanitarian aid. We were the first in, we were there in large numbers. We have been in some of the most difficult positions. I think the British command and the British troops have done a superb job there right the way through some very difficult times, we have sponsored most of the UN resolutions.

    We still want to see a political settlement and the maintenance of humanitarian aid but beyond humanitarian aid it seems to me overwhelmingly likely that if there is a political settlement it will need some form of international support and international guarantees. If Lord Owen and others are able to reach a political settlement, the Muslim state will be in the centre. It will need access to the sea; that is going to need a corridor. It defies logic that that corridor isn’t going to need some form of international guarantee, very possibly United Nations troops but quite apart from that, the mess we are likely to find there at the end of the fighting is certainly also going to need an international presence to help with it. I think that, too, will be the United Nations and most of the big nations would expect to fulfil their obligations and play a part in that.

    QUESTION (Reuters News Agency):

    Prime Minister, would you please tell us how you see the present political upheaval in Japan. As you may know very well, Mr. Miyazawa called a snap election for July 18 and some people expect Japan will have a two-party system some time after the election.

    How do you see the situation? Japan is changing or not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly think Japan is changing but if there is one thing I have learned in politics over the last 20 years, it is that it is extremely unwise to go to another country and comment on its political system at the beginning of a general election.

    I will simply say that having contested a number of general elections myself, they should be held at regular and not too frequent intervals and I wish all the participants in the Japanese general election as much enjoyment as I had in mine.

    QUESTION (William Keegan, The Observer):

    You mentioned the welcome fall in unemployment in the UK. How much of this do you attribute to supply-side policies and how much to devaluation, lower interest rates and the public sector deficit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the supply-side changes made throughout the 1980s have made the United Kingdom economy a much more flexible economy than it was in the past. Many people suspected that the unemployment tail after the end of the recession would go on just as it did after the 1981 recession, perhaps for three or four years. It was on that basis that so many people forecast unemployment going up to 3.5 million. Well, it is now clear it isn’t going to go up to 3.5 million. The adjusted figures – proper figures, if I can put it that way – didn’t actually quite reach 3 million and have now fallen for four months in a row.

    I think all the factors you mentioned are factors. The speed at which it turned round I think owes a good deal to the supply-side reforms of the 1980s. The best illustration of that I suppose one can give is if you look at the United States – perhaps the most flexible economy; whenever its economy shows an upturn their unemployment does tend to decline more rapidly than in other far more structured economies in western Europe so I think those supply-side changes played a significant role. That said, I have absolutely no doubt that the devaluation and the reduction of interest rates have accelerated that trend. I think that must self-evidently be so.

  • PMQT – 8 July 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th July 1993. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Tipping : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 July.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the G7 economic summit in Tokyo where he has played an important part in bringing about a major step forward in resolving the GATT round.

    Mr. Tipping : Given the citizen’s charter, is the Lord President concerned that Regional Railways has cut its publicity budget by 30 per cent? As a result of that, many small stations in the east midlands and East Anglia no longer appear on the timetable. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure rail users that those stations will stay open after privatisation? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the problem? With no platform, no timetable and no sense of direction–that surely sounds like this Government.

    Mr. Newton : The Government’s sense of direction is very clear with regard to the vigour with which we have carried the rail privatisation proposals through the House to pave the way for further improvements in rail services. That is what we shall see.

    Mr. Spring : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a result of the Government’s trade union reforms, substantial power has been handed back to individual trade union members? Does he believe that there are other parts of union activity that could benefit from the introduction of one man, one vote?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s point about the effect of the trade union reforms that we have carried through in respect of returning power to individual members. I can think of quite a number of other reforms that should be carried out, but, unfortunately, they depend on the success of the leader of the Labour party, which he is not exactly having.

    Mr. John Smith : Bearing in mind that pensioners already face value added tax on their heating bills and the prospect of having to pay prescription charges, why is the Prime Minister in his speech in Tokyo adding to their very genuine fears by threatening even further curbs on social spending?

    Mr. Newton : I must say that I am not surprised, in view of the contrast between my right hon. Friend’s success in Tokyo and the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s catastrophe in Bournemouth, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should– [Interruption.] In Tokyo, my right hon. Friend was making the point that all western countries face rising pressures on their welfare budgets. Few would argue in this country that the current Department of Social Security budget of almost £80 billion is necessarily spent in the best way possible and that any Government are not entitled and right to review policy and spending patterns. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees with that, may I say that I have just been quoting, to all intents and purposes, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).

    Mr. Smith : Is not it now absolutely clear from the Prime Minister’s speech in Tokyo and the documents issued by the Secretary of State for Social Security that the Government have embarked on a blatant attempt to soften up the public for cuts in public spending? Does he not appreciate the justified anger of pensioners who have paid tax and insurance all their lives and hear these threats to their pensions? Does he not think that it is monstrous that these people should be asked to pay the price of the Government’s economic improvidence?

    Mr. Newton : What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has published this morning is a range of information to inform the debate which, in my view, everybody in this country agrees must sensibly be had. It is a debate which the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertook in setting up his social justice commission and in his own manifesto statement for the Labour party leadership. Pensioners have an absolute guarantee from the Government that we will maintain our commitment to uprate the basic retirement pension in line with prices and that we will not do what the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s Government did–fiddle the uprating figures and abolish the Christmas bonus two years running.

    Mr. Smith : On the subject of guarantees, can the right hon. Gentleman remind us of what the Government said at the election about guarantees on value added tax?

    Mr. Newton : The Government made it clear at the election that they would maintain the commitments to pensioners that I outlined. What I want to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and have not yet heard at any stage, is why the Labour party left VAT on fuel out of the list of those things that it was determined not to do.

    Mr. Knapman : The whole House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his considerable success at the G7 economic summit–[Hon. Members :– “No.”]–the sensible ones, anyway. Will my right hon. Friend, on his return, look at the ever- increasing number of directions and regulations coming from Brussels, because, surely, what we really need to meet and beat world competition is a lightly regulated, free-trading economy?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. That, indeed, is another of the points that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has underlined, not only time and again in discussions in Europe but now in the discussions in Tokyo in relation to the G7 summit. It is clear from the response from one country after another, most recently from President Clinton and the United States, that that crucial British message about the need to ensure the competitiveness of our economies is beginning to hit home all around the world.

     

    Q2. Mr. Fraser : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Fraser : I remind the Leader of the House, in relation to the questions put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), that the Government were absolutely explicit about not extending the ambit of value added tax. Now they impose a hypothermia tax, which will mostly hit people with modest savings and small pensions and people on the margins of poverty. Because the Government did that, why should anyone believe what they say about not whittling away pensions and making pensioners’ incomes means tested? Surely the Government’s problem is that their clock has now struck for the 13th time.

    Mr. Newton : The reason that pensioners should believe the commitments that we have made about their pensions is that we have consistently honoured our commitments to pensioners in a way that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members cannot possibly claim to have done.

    Mr. David Howell : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming not only the excellent news from Tokyo about the proposed tariff cuts– which will, of course greatly increase trade and jobs–but the fact that at present the pound is regarded as the strongest currency in Europe? Does he agree that the right response to those two positive developments is to do everything possible, not to manipulate the exchange rate up or down but to maintain our competitiveness, build a good infrastructure, keep down inflation and manage our costs very tightly, and that that is a very promising way forward for this nation?

    Mr. Newton : Again, I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. Alongside my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s success in contributing to a further step forward in an important deal for world trade is his success–and that of the Government–in emphasising and carrying through in Britain the policies to which my right hon. Friend has referred, and which will leave us particularly well placed to take advantage of the increase in world trade that will result.

    Rev. Martin Smyth : Can the Leader of the House, speaking on behalf of the Government, tell us whether, at the intergovernmental conference today, the Government will contend that the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland should not be ridden over roughshod any longer but that those people should be treated as part of the United Kingdom?

    Mr. Newton : I can assure the hon. Gentleman, and he would expect no less from me, that the Government remain totally committed to the principle that any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland would come about only with the consent of a majority of the people who live there, and I repeat that commitment this afternoon.

    Mr. Peter Robinson : Did the Leader of the House read in The Guardian this morning an article that stated that the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Irish Republic attempted to pour petrol on Ulster fires by endorsing the Labour party proposal for joint authority and putting forward a further proposition for a commission, with representatives from the Dublin Government, Her Majesty’s Government and the European Community, taking charge of Northern Ireland? Will the Leader of the House rebuke, as strongly as the Prime Minister did last week, the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister for making such a suggestion?

    Mr. Newton : I have noted that report. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is meeting Mr. Spring this afternoon and will seek clarification of what he said. What I can do, and have just done for the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), is to repeat clearly and emphatically the British Government’s position in this matter. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) can no doubt speak for the Labour party, but the British Government deplore the Labour party’s position as well.

    Mr. Ashdown : Do the Government yet understand that typhus and cholera are shortly to be added to shells and bullets as the means by which the people of Sarajevo will be condemned to die? Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that mere words from the G7 in Tokyo will be sufficient to save them?

    Mr. Newton : The G7 summit in Tokyo has clearly reaffirmed our and other countries’ commitment to the territorial integrity of Bosnia and to a negotiated settlement based on the principles of the London conference. It has made it absolutely clear that we cannot agree to any solution for Bosnia dictated by the Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Muslims. As the whole House would wish it to do, the summit has underlined our commitment to the urgent implementation of safe areas and to improving the flow of humanitarian aid.

    Mr. Patrick Thompson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the past 14 years the Conservative Government have shown real determination and courage in carrying through their reforms with the trade unions? Does he agree that the Leader of the Opposition singularly lacks those qualities in dealing with the same matters?

    Mr. Newton : The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East probably wishes that he was in Tokyo and had not had to go to Bournemouth. Since he left Bournemouth with what looked to me on the television news last night as a rather sheepish expression on his face, he has, of course, suffered a further significant reverse with the vote that the Transport and General Workers Union took this morning to reject his plans.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Prentice : What would the Lord President say to the firefighters in Pendle who, over the past 14 years, have seen their pay formula scrapped and the imposition of a 1.5 per cent. pay limit, when the chairman of North West Water has received a 43 per cent. increase, taking his salary to £267,000 a year? Why is it that those who douse the flames are worth so much less than those who provide the water?

    Mr. Newton : I would say to the firefighters of Pendle or anywhere else that they should not listen to the kind of overheated rhetoric in which the hon. Gentleman indulges.

    Mr. Cormack : Reverting to the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that reaffirmation of itself is a cruel hoax unless it is followed by action? There is nothing to stop Sarajevo being saved. Can something now be done?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend has taken a long and honourable interest in these matters. He knows the difficulties of proceeding in quite the way he has often suggested. I would do no more at this stage than repeat what I said in an earlier answer–the British Government will continue to do everything that they properly and responsibly can to achieve a settlement that will stop the bloodshed in Bosnia.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Tokyo – 7 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Tokyo, held on Wednesday 7th July 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what can you us about the movement we hear reported from the so-called Quad talks, does this mean that GATT is on its way?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It looks as though it may, yes, it looks as though the talks have ended satisfactorily, I do not have all the details yet so I will spare you the details I do have, but it does look as though it is probable we will now have a market access agreement. That is important not just in itself but because it means we can then move forward to the multilateral talks back in Geneva and towards a GATT settlement, that is very important. It sounds technical but what it means is more trade, open market and more jobs, so it is very important.

    QUESTION:

    In short, why does it matter?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It matters precisely for the fact that it will actually create jobs. If one can free up world trade there will be more world trade, the more world trade there is the more goods need to be produced, the more goods are produced the more people are working producing them, so in a single word it means jobs.

    QUESTION:

    Does it mean a transfer of jobs away from Western and developed economies?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I do not think so, that point is sometimes put, doesn’t it mean a transfer of jobs? But a general growth of trade, which is what a satisfactory agreement on GATT will mean, removing trade barriers and removing tariffs, that will help people in every country around the world and I think it will mean more jobs around the world. The estimates are that it will increase world trade very substantially, it removes barriers to many British exports when it is concluded, textiles for example, Scotch whisky perhaps, a whole range of areas that are of very great importance to us. Undilutedly good news when the round is completed, today it looks as though we have made a further step forward.

    QUESTION:

    How much extra bullying would you now need to do to turn a Quad agreement into a proper GATT agreement and are you worried that the French Prime Minister is not here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The French President is here. There is a lot of badgering being done over the last couple of years, no-one is in any doubt at all about the importance that the British have given to this particular settlement, it has gone on for some time. I wish we had settled the whole matter last year or the year before, but we have not. We have now made a great deal of progress. A substantial amount of a final agreement is already in place, there is still quite a lot to be done hut one ought not to overlook the amount that is now already in the bag and is agreed. We will just have to push and push and push, however unpopular it makes us, to try and get a final settlement later on this year.

    QUESTION:

    This will nevertheless have to go through the European Council, are you confident that all twelve member states of the Community will be on side on this and that means specifically the French?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is actually agreed by qualified majority vote, it does not need unanimity in the European Community, it is a matter that is dealt with by qualified majority vote.

    QUESTION:

    You are confident the Community will agree it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it would be folly if the Community were not to agree to go forward.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think we will get agreement by the end of the year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope so, the prize is very great. If there is one thing around the world that people are concerned about it is to see an increase in the growth of world trade, an increase in confidence and the creation of jobs. There are 23 million people in the G7 countries who are without work, there are 17 million people, rising, in the European Community without work. Now here is the biggest single policy change that can help to create new jobs, everyone should snatch at that.

    QUESTION:

    What are you likely to say in the world economy debate this afternoon?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have to remove many of the barriers to growth, there are a whole range of them, one of them of course is the trade barriers that we have been talking about that are subject to negotiation in the GATT round, others are the degree of deregulation that exists, there are a whole series of supply side changes that are necessary, a greater concentration on skills and education, a whole raft of things that I will set out this afternoon. But in essence we have to address long term problems that have suddenly become clear across the world as a result of the recession, if we address those problems now we will set the right basics in place for growth throughout the ’90s and greater prosperity in the ’90s. So it is removing those barriers to growth that I regard as the most important thing.

    QUESTION:

    It is deregulation really?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Deregulation is a part of it, it is by no means the sum total of what needs to be done, but deregulation is certainly an important part of it.

    QUESTION:

    You have a bilateral today with President Clinton, after the disagreements on Bosnia and the American decision on nuclear testing, how much patching up have you got to do?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no need for patching up. President Clinton and I speak regularly on the phone, we had a very lengthy conversation about this particular summit and related matters on Saturday, we will be meeting in the margins of this particular summit to discuss a range of things. There is no patching up job to do, there is a whole raft of areas where we are in complete agreement and I suspect the principal agenda for this summit is one of those areas where we are in total agreement.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] changing the balance of power in the world, how hard are you having to fight to maintain Britain’s position at the table at G7 and at the UN?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not having to fight at all hard, Britain’s place at the G7 and at the United Nations is entirely secure, the only time it is ever questioned is when people like you ask me questions like that, otherwise it is not in any doubt whatsoever.

    QUESTION:

    Why is the New Statesman settlement so low for you personally?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The important thing in the New Statesman settlement, and all the other elements of that settlement, was that people acknowledged that the libel was untrue, that has been acknowledged, everyone concerned has now paid damages. The size of the damages was never a relevant factor, the confirmation that the stories were untrue and unfounded was the relevant factor, that has now been obtained from everybody concerned with the case, those who spread the libel, those who printed the individual publications, all of them have now indicated that it is unfounded and untrue, I am satisfied with that, it is now no longer an issue I need concern myself with, it is dead and gone.

    QUESTION:

    But the New Statesman is claiming a moral victory and there is a suggestion that you have accepted these low damages in order to avoid appearing in the witness box?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a curious moral victory when they admit it cost them a quarter of a million pounds in total, that is a very curious moral victory. They have admitted what they said was unfounded, they are not in a position to repeat, they cannot repeat it, it has cost them a quarter of a million pounds, if that is a moral victory it is not the sort of moral victory they would like every week.

  • PMQT – 6 July 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th July 1993. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Dykes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the G7 economic summit in Tokyo.

    Mr. Dykes : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government and our leading partners will exert maximum pressure on the Japanese to open their markets to imports of all kinds and to the sort of free trade that is now developing rapidly in the European single market?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise that. One of the key aims of the G7 summit will be to agree on measures that can help to further the recovery of the world economy, including the maintenance and sustenance of free and competitive trade. My right hon. Friend’s aim will include very much ensuring that sufficient progress is made on the market access and services package to permit early resumption of the multilateral negotiations in Geneva and bring a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is the Lord President aware that, last night in another place, his ministerial colleagues said that the defeat that the Government suffered on the Railways Bill struck at the heart of that legislation? Does he agree?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made it clear that the Government have set out and seen accepted in this place their arguments on this matter and he will take a lot of persuading to believe that the policy should be changed. Nevertheless, the other place has asked for reconsideration and, of course, we will carefully consider the points that have been made.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is it not crazy that the French, the Germans or the Italians will be able to run trains on British railways and the only people who will not are British Rail? Why do the Government not show some common sense and simply admit that they have got it wrong?

    Mr. Newton : The right hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends have fought every privatisation for 12 or 14 years. As one by one the privatisations have proved successful, they have been forced to abandon most of that. The people who need to learn the lessons are Her Majesty’s Opposition.

    Mr. Mark Robinson : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has published figures today showing an 11 per cent. increase in new care sales over June 1992? Is that not further evidence that the recovery is being sustained?

    Mr. Newton : Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend has described exactly the figures published this morning by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. What is more, the SMMT goes on to say that recovery in the new car market in all but three of the past 15 months is now clearly established. That comes alongside all the other evidence that we have seen– manufacturing output up, car output up, exports up and unemployment down.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bradley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Bradley : Does the Leader of the House recall that on 29 October 1987, less than six years ago, as the then Minister for Health, he proudly came to my constituency to open the Duchess of York children’s hospital? Is he aware that, last week, South Manchester health authority confirmed its plan to close that purpose-built children’s hospital despite overwhelming opposition?

    Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he supports the all- party campaign, which has overwhelming public support, to keep open our children’s hospital, or will he accept the invitation which is on the way to him, to return to Manchester, to close that hospital on behalf of the Government?

    Mr. Newton : I well remember the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I have to say that the hospital was not opened by me but by the Duchess of York. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is considering the proposal, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it will be subject to full public consultation. My right hon. Friend will make her decision in due course.

     

    Q3. Dr. Spink : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Dr. Spink : Does my right hon. Friend agree that political parties should not sell the right to choose their leaders or decide their policies? Can he confirm that the Conservative party remains committed to one man, one vote?

    Mr. Newton rose– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The activities of political parties are not a subject for Prime Minister’s Question Time. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) must question the Government about their policies. It is Government policy in which we are interested. Mr. Newton rose– —

    Hon. Members : No.

    Madam Speaker : Order. The Leader of the House has been with us a long time and he is a respected man in this place. I am sure that he has an appropriate reply.

    Mr. Newton : I was going to say that I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) was asking about the Government’s attitude to such matters. [Interruption.] I think that that question is entirely right. I have read with great interest the press reports of recent days, starting with that about the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who said that he was going to have a confrontation with the unions, and followed by the comments of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who said that she was looking for compromise. I just wonder when we shall have the climbdown and capitulation.

     

    Q4. Mr. Heppell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Heppell : Is the Leader of the House aware that 405 former council properties are empty in the city of Nottingham and that 80 of them have already been vandalised, when 350 households have been designated as statutorily homeless and another 104 families live in conditions that are statutorily overcrowded? Does the Leader of the House not believe that it is time that the Government took a compassionate and humanitarian view and allowed the city council to spend some of the £53 million that it has amassed from the sale of council houses to put roofs over those people’s heads?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman will know that, at this period of time, Nottingham city council–in common with others–has full freedom to spend capital receipts. It can also take advantage– [Interruption.] It may spend capital receipts generated at this time. It also has access to the full range of measures that my right hon. and hon. Friends have introduced to assist the housing market.

    Mr. John Greenway : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Viscount Runciman and his colleagues on the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice, which has been published today? Although many of its recommendations will require a great deal of thought and consideration, does my right hon. Friend agree that some improvements in our criminal justice system are desirable not just to protect the innocent but to ensure that the guilty are properly convicted?

    Hon. Members : Hear, hear.

    Mr. Newton : It is obvious from the response of my right hon. and hon. Friends–and, I suspect, a good deal of sympathy from the Opposition– that there is a wide welcome for the report that has been published today by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. There will no doubt be differences of opinion about some of the report’s conclusions, but the importance of that matter is undoubted. The contribution that the royal commission has made to the debate on those matters is undoubted and the Government will give its recommendations the most careful consideration and then come to conclusions about what to do.

     

    Q5. Mr. Tyler : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Tyler : Is the Lord President aware that the Prime Minister visited north Cornwall exactly five months ago today and promised my constituents that he was taking action on excessive water and sewerage charges? Will he confirm whether it is the Government’s policy to renege on existing environmental obligations or does he intend to break that promise?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to my right hon. Friend’s visit to the south-west and to his recognition of the concern felt in the south-west, and much expressed by my hon. Friends, about the level of water charges. My right hon. Friends have been actively examining the options for reducing the increase in charges and, particularly, phasing in the burdens of the waste water directive in a way that would help. That consideration is going on at the moment.

     

    Q6. Dr. Michael Clark : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Dr. Clark : Does my right hon. Friend agree with Senator Campos, who is currently leading a Brazilian Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Westminster, when he said last night that Brazil is not just a country of the future, nor Britain just a country of the past, but that both are countries for today? Is that not best illustrated by the figures for Jaguar cars, which show that output has gone up 46 per cent., exports to Germany and the United States by 20 per cent., and that confidence in that company is greater than for many years.

    Mr. Newton : I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s interest in Brazil and echo the welcome that he has given to the visitors who are here from that country. I join him also in hoping that they may boost Jaguar car sales still further by taking some back with them. Meanwhile, I endorse my hon. Friend’s pleasure at the British motor industry in accelerating away from its European competitors and links with the figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders that we were discussing earlier.

    Ms Abbott : If the Government are really concerned about single mothers on benefit, when will they bring forward a strategy for child care? Is the Minister aware that most women on benefit would dearly like to go out to work and be independent but that their main problem is child care? When will the Government understand that investment in child care would be an investment in growth in general, and the surest and most humane way to get women off social security?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Lady will be familiar with the increase in pre -school provision of all kinds in recent years. She will also be well aware that at least as important a part of a policy in the area with which she is concerned are those policies for the improved collection and enforcement of child maintenance represented by the Child Support Agency, now getting successfully under way.

     

    Q7. Mr. Haselhurst : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Haselhurst : Is it correct to say that my right hon. Friend’s colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry have secured a further £2 billion of help from European Community structural funds to help two of the most disadvantaged areas of the United Kingdom? If so, is that not proof of the merits of working vigorously and whole-heartedly within the Community, rather than constantly fretting about our relationship with it?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the whole House will wish to pay tribute to the Minister for Industry on his negotiating success in the Community at the end of last week. He succeeded in reaching an agreement which will extend objective 1 status under the structural fund to Merseyside and to the Highlands and Islands enterprise area, and to the areas Argyll, Bute and West Moray which were not proposed by the Commission. That agreement is likely to bring about £2.25 billion to the United Kingdom over the next six years, to all its objective 1 areas, including Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Bryan Davies : With regard to political contributions, why is it all one way? What incentives do the Government give to rich Britons to make political contributions to right-wing regimes abroad, or does the whole idea stink?

    Mr. Newton : As I may possibly have said on some previous occasion, I will listen to lectures from such as the hon. Gentleman on that matter when we stop facing the prospect of a position in the Labour party where it will be one man, 2 million votes.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Tokyo – 6 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview held in Tokyo on Tuesday 6th July 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, President Clinton has talked today of the crisis of slow growth in the developed world, what are you going to be able to do about it here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think he is right about that. Right the way across Europe, in Japan, in the United States, right across the industrialised world there has been very slow growth, the only thing that has grown faster of course has been unemployment and there are 23 million people unemployed amongst the G7 nations here. So I think we have to make that a centre-piece for the discussions we have over the next few days. No-one is suddenly going to find a magical solution that will put all those people back into work but what we do need is to make sure all countries have the right policies to produce growth. Britain is coming into growth, I want to see other countries coming back as well.

    QUESTION:

    You said after Munich that you would badger and bully until the GATT negotiations came to a solution, who do you blame for the fact that that solution has not yet been achieved?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not in the business of distributing blame. What I am in the business of doing is continuing to badger and bully, we do need a settlement, it is no less vital now than it was months ago at Munich, no less vital than it was a couple of years ago and I think it is important we make some progress. I very much hope that by the end of this summit we will have a market access agreement opening up markets, lowering tariffs, increasing trade and enabling more jobs to be created. I hope that we will have that and I hope we will also have an agreement that we can return to the multilateral trade talks in Geneva, that I hope will be achieved this week. It will not be easy to achieve, there will undoubtedly be difficulties, that is perfectly clear, but I think that is what we must aim at.

    QUESTION:

    Is it conceivable when there has been a failure for 4 years to sort out the GATT talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you need to ask the people who have not been able to reach agreement, it is not the British.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not the British, there are other people who have particular difficulties in their own countries, the Cairns Group by and large can sign up to the agreement, there are other countries that cannot, we are urging them to do so. I believe that Britain could reach a final agreement on the trade talks very speedily, we will be encouraging other people to do the same.

    QUESTION:

    A domestic question, if I may, are you going to try and repair the defeat on the rail bill in the Lords?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not had a chance to discuss it with John MacGregor yet, I only heard of it as I got on the plane to leave for here, but I think it is probable we will, yes.

    QUESTION:

    You will try and reverse it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is probable we will but I have not yet discussed it with the Secretary of State.

    QUESTION:

    The Japanese have indicated today officially that they are putting in a request to join the Permanent Members of the Security Council, would you now be ready to support this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have never ruled out the question of Security Council reform, I think it is something that has; to be taken very gently. There are a lot of ramifications to that, one has to look at the competing demands from a number of countries who would like to become Permanent Members, Japan clearly has a case, there are a number of other countries as well. So I think it is a very wide issue and I think it is one that will involve us for some time in discussion.

    QUESTION:

    What about Bosnia, is this a forgotten subject at this summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think anyone could forget Bosnia, I do not think we could and I do not think we should. It is not the centre-piece or this particular summit, I think the two centre-pieces of this summit, if you can have two centre-pieces, are unemployment and growth and the need for progress in the trade negotiations. But I do not think anyone pushes the horror of Bosnia to one side, it is with us all the time.

    QUESTION:

    The Japanese Prime Minister, when talking to President Clinton, said that the gap between imports and exports are beyond our control, we cannot play with GDP figures. He does not sound like a man who is prepared to do business on this issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I had not heard that, Michael, no doubt that is one of the many matters we will discuss perhaps most obviously in our first sessions on employment and on the economies. I am sure a range of issues like that will come up.

    QUESTION:

    It is going to take a lot of give and take to get some trade agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, but I think I had better comment on it after we have had the give and take and we see what emerges from it.

    QUESTION:

    Do you like the idea of a Jobs Summit, as proposed by President Clinton?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I have not seen the details of what he has said, I understand he has in mind getting experts together to examine what might be done, I see no objection to that, I think it might be productive. No doubt he will raise it at the summit.

    QUESTION:

    Would you send Britain’s Employment Minister to such a summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think here we have all got something to learn from one another, I shall certainly be advancing the case for a whole series of supply side changes in countries right the way around the world. If this is a practical proposal that can be of use to us, of course we would take part.

    QUESTION:

    Do you expect and hope that this will be the last summit of its kind?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have made no secret of the fact that I would like to reform the summit, I would like more talk of trade opportunities and perhaps fewer photo opportunities. They summit is a huge gathering. There are, if I may say so, 11,000 journalists here, I am not sure that perhaps that is the best use of 11,000 journalists. Perhaps if we had smaller summits, more cohesive summits, perhaps if there were not such great expectations built up for them beforehand, if we could have the quiet, reflective and frank discussions that I think Heads of Government should have more frequently, then perhaps they would be more productive. I would hope we can move in that direction after this summit.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Jacques Delors and Kiichi Miyazawa – 4 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Jacques Delors and Kiichi Miyazawa (Japanese Prime Minister), held in London on Saturday 4th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just say at the outset, we have had some very worthwhile discussions this morning and we will continue with those over luncheon, there are a number of matters we wish to talk about that we have not yet reached on our agenda.

    I think it is fitting that the summit meeting with Japan this morning is one of the first events of the UK Presidency of the Community, it does underline very starkly, I think, the commitment to an open outward looking Community that all our European partners wish to build.

    Japan, of course, is a very welcome guest here this morning, a major global power not just in economic and trade terms but also a major power in political terms as well. And Japan and the Community have in common a number of interests in close contact at the very highest level.

    Our talks this morning have covered many of the global challenges that face both Japan and each and every nation in the Community: the need for early and successful conclusion of the GATT Uruguay round; the matters we need to discuss on economic assistance to central and Eastern Europe and the very welcome Japanese contribution there has been to the efforts of the Group of 24; the future of the countries in the former Soviet Union, it was very useful to get a Japanese perspective on those difficulties this morning; we had the opportunity of a brief discussion on global environmental problems and the scene as we perceive it after Rio.

    We propose to continue our talks later and we have a number of key international issues still to discuss – Yugoslavia, China, Cambodia, the Middle East peace process and also, I think, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We very much welcome the active Japanese role in that and as you will know, Japan and the Community jointly tabled UN resolutions on the register of arms transfers.

    So we have also had a good discussion this morning on the trade relationship, I think that is a central part of our relationship and it was worthwhile to spend some time on that this morning. I would like to stress a number of points about that, I would like to stress particularly the Community’s welcome for the inward investment there has been from Japan, we have a particular experience of that in the United Kingdom, 40 percent of Japanese direct manufacturing investment in the Community actually comes to the United Kingdom. We would welcome further Japanese investment and I know that is the view of our Community partners as well.

    Japan is also the Community’s second biggest trading partner and we are often in competition in the trade sphere and I think between manufacturing nations that is as it should be. But we certainly support the Commission’s efforts to reduce the trade imbalance in Japan and to remove the remaining barriers to trade. And we were able this morning to welcome the steps taken by the Japanese government to improve access to certain sectoral markets.

    These are matters that we will continue to discuss both today and in subsequent meetings both at political and at official level. Trade does remain the very core of the European/Japanese relationship but we do believe those economic questions should be discussed in the context of a wider dialogue involving political issues as well. Our aim for the community/Japanese relationship is quite clear cut and quite unambiguous, we want the relationship to be a long-term partnership based on shared value and objectives and to that end I think we had a useful series of discussions this morning.

    QUESTION (Finnish Broadcasting Company):

    Did you speak about the northern territories and did Japan get any sympathy for its idea that it should be a precondition for help for the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did touch upon the northern territories dispute, as we have in the past. It is essentially a bilateral dispute and can only be solved bilaterally between Japan and the Soviet Union and I think for the rest of us to take public positions would not assist in that bilateral settlement. The most important thing is that there is an agreement and there are very important discussions that lie not very far ahead, in September I think Prime Minister, between Prime Minister Miyazawa and President Yeltsin.

    QUESTION (Peter Bale, Reuters):

    Could you give the British attitude to Japanese wishes to take a seat on the United Nations Security Council and also elaborate on your views about GATT at this point having spoken to Mr Miyazawa?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first point was not discussed at all this morning but it may be that it will come up in our bilateral discussions with Mr Miyazawa this afternoon. On the subject of GATT, we did touch on GATT, we spent some time on that. There is clearly an imperative to reach a conclusion to the GATT round as speedily as we possibly can, there are still some difficulties to be overcome, but I think we are sufficiently close to an agreement to make a real effort to get one and to get one without delay. There are a variety of reasons for that, not just the intrinsic desirability of an agreement on a Uruguay Round simply for the sake of having an agreement, but I doubt that there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that a GATT agreement would be a significant stimulus to world trade and as such particularly valuable at the moment when world trade is flagging, in many countries unemployment is rising and growth is falling. So I think there is the wider economic perspective for getting an agreement as well. It is also I think a particularly important matter from the United Kingdom point of view that that growth in world trade will not just be of benefit to the developing manufacturing nations of the world, but a very substantial part of that growth would go to the developing and third world.

    So I think for political, economic and humanitarian reasons, there is every imperative to seek a conclusion to the GATT Round as speedily as possible. I believe it is possible, nobody should under-estimate the difficulties and the national interests that remain, but there was an eclectic agreement this morning that we should try and pursue as speedily as possible a satisfactory outcome.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Miyazawa, according to a report yesterday President Yeltsin of Russia was critical of the Japanese attitude that Japan was not investing a single penny in Russia, what is your response? And my second question to Mr Major, in this joint press statement there is no mention about the northern territory problem, does this mean that the EC is reluctant to support the Japanese position in the Munich conference?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can answer the second point very quickly. We will discuss the matters in the Munich conference at the Munich conference and not in advance of it.

    MR MIYAZAWA:

    With regard to your first question, Japan has already provided assistance amounting to as much as 2.65 billion and others and if President Yeltsin does not know of this then there must be something very strange.

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds, BBC):

    Mr Major, would the failure to build a European Fighter Aircraft weaken European industry and if such an aircraft is not built would you seek Community funds for retraining the workers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We do not yet have a decision on the European Fighter Aircraft, I read a great deal about what is going to happen to the European Fighter Aircraft. I have to say to you that we have had no formal communication yet from the German government about their position on the European fighter at all, I did see some reports that seemed to me to be a bit misconceived. We are talking to the Germans about the position on the European fighter and their Defence Secretary, Volker Ruhe, will be here in London at the beginning of next week and will be meeting Malcolm Rifkind. We are also talking to our partners from Spain and from Italy about the project. We made the decision some time ago that we needed an aircraft of EFA’s capability for military reasons, that was a decision the British government made some time ago. We believe it is certainly possible to reduce the costs of the European Fighter and we equally take the view that the alternatives to the European Fighter are likely to be more expensive, not less expensive, and will take longer to produce and cannot be produced in swifter time.

    So it remains the fact that we still see the European Fighter an an important project, we must wait and discuss the matter further with our partners but I hope it will be possible to continue with it.

    QUESTION (TASS):

    I have a question for you both, what is the government’s stance on the latest suggestion of President Bush to enlarge the G7 into G8 by including Russia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am aware of no formal proposal to do that. What happened last year was that President Yeltsin was invited to join the G7 so that the G7 could have discussions with another great world power after the conclusion of the G7 conference. That is what is happening again this year.

    MR MIYAZAWA:

    Two or three days ago I had a meeting with President Bush and that subject was not brought up in our discussion.

    QUESTION (Peter Norman, FT):

    Prime Minister, you said a few minutes ago that you want to see a GATT agreement as quickly as possible, does that mean that we can expect some sort of parallel negotiations at the Munich summit because after all there are going to be major players there, Secretary Baker, Mr Andriessen, that sort of thing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not quite know what may be implied by parallel negotiations. I think it would be very surprising indeed if people did not discuss the present difficulties there are in the Uruguay Round whilst the major players, as you say, are there, but I do not know what the outcome of those will be but it would certainly be a matter I think that will be discussed, not necessarily in the main forum, that is a separate matter, but it will certainly be discussed I am sure in the bilateral meetings that will take place there.

    QUESTION:

    I refer to paragraph 8 of the press release and see that there is support for the Middle East peace process launched at Madrid in October 1991. What projects do you have at the European level and with the Japanese to support the economy in the Occupied Territories of Palestine?

    1. DELORS:

    The Commission has produced a document to the Council of Ministers of the Community in the case of peace in the Middle East to offer technical assistance, a common programme, economic concertation to the countries of the region and the Council of Ministers waits for the issue of the peace negotiation process to decide on the proposal of the Commission.

    QUESTION (Jackie Ashley, ITN):

    1. Delors, could you confirm a story in today’s “Telegraph” here that the European Commission is going to repeal some of its laws, particularly on the environment and on animal welfare protection?
    2. DELORS:

    No, not yet. we had only a meeting of the Commission. During this meeting, I repeat my proposals I made to the Heads of of Government over the dinner of the Council of Lisbon and also I explained to my colleagues what means in the communique of the Europeans Council of Lisbon and the Commission is prepared to follow and to apply the reorientation first for the new proposal of the Commission and also in parallel to study the content of the present legislation and possibly to revise this legislation but we must make a report to the European Council at the end of next year. Be sure that the Commission is very focused on this subject.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Prime Minister Miyozawa and Prime Minister Major, did you discuss Japan’s efforts to stimulate the economy and if you did, how do you assess Japan’s efforts? Prime Minister Miyozawa, how did you explain your plan to prepare a supplementary budget this autumn?

    MR MIYAZAWA:

    The Japanese economy is slowing down rather substantially and therefore even in the current budget we have significant front-loading of public works expenditure and about 70% of the entire public works expenditure for example will be spent in the first half of the year. If that is not sufficient as a stimulus, then we shall also introduce further resources for the purpose of public works investment, smaller businesses and so on as additional fiscal measures and, of course, the timing of such supplementary measures will depend on the timing of the effects of the permeation of the existing measures but I believe that it might be some time around the coming autumn.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I can add to that on the part of the question directed to me, I think the Prime Minister set out some of the parameters of our discussion. In addition to that on economic stimulation, we did note that the domestic stimulation in Japan between 1985 and 1990 had played a material role in reducing the trade imbalances at present between the West European nations generally and Japan.

    The point I was particularly keen to discuss with the Prime Minister was the 5-year growth target averaging at 3 1/2% a year and whether that was a practical growth target that Japan would be likely to hit and the implications that would have on the growth of world trade. The Prime Minister felt that that was a target that Japan could meet. He drew attention to the growth record in recent years and was confident that that average of 3 1/2% over the next 5 years would be met and that is of course extremely good news.

    QUESTION (David Langton – Bureau of National Affairs):

    I would like Prime Minister Major to elaborate if he could on the discussions on global environmental issues and perhaps M. Delors to clarify the EC’s position on EFTA countries that might want to join the EC particularly in regard to those that are just about to leave the International Whaling Commission because they are upset with joint decision-making at that body and whether they would fit into the EC comfortably with their whaling policies and perhaps you could clarify the EC whaling policy.

    The second question is on EC-Japanese trade. Could you elaborate on whether you foresee that growing or declining in the coming years and whether that might be at the expense of the United States or either group?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the environment collaboration, we were really reviewing the collective follow-up to Rio rather than necessarily examining new areas of collaboration though we did reach an agreement in principle that environmental control was a matter that involved us. It was clearly a global matter. There would need to be further collaboration in terms of research and more relevantly in terms of action and we were able to discuss that and some of the actions that were necessary. I put one or two propositions forward that will be considered and taken forward privately.

    1. DELORS:

    On Norway, the first target for the government is to obtain the ratification of the new agreement on economic common space. For the application, we follow with great interest the discussion inside Norway. As you know, the Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland has opened a campaign of explanation in her party but also for public opinion and from the last news the Norwegian government intend to take a final position next November.

    QUESTION:

    A simple question for Mr. Major. As you know, international public opinion thinks that the collapse of the former Soviet Union requires a stronger major role in a special way in international and political relationships and the same public opinion wants to know if Mr. Major, politically speaking, will be so brave and sensible to achieve this major political role through the European Community that is from the federalist point of view institutional and decentralise from the political point of view according to the principle of subsidiarity. What is the position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I like your definition of a simple question!

    I think there is no doubt that there has to be collective support in order to deal with the problems of the former Soviet Union. They are not problems that can be dealt with within the Soviet Union without external help; they are not problems that can just be helped bilaterally by the United States or by Europe. There is a collective need for help and it is for that reason that we have all collaborated in different ways, particularly through the Group of 24, to provide many billion dollars worth of assistance and why there are also the current discussions that are taking place between the IMF and the Russian Republic to determine the right sort of conditionality upon which Western aid will be made available.

    The point of conditionality is perfectly clear: we need to ensure that the large resources that will be made available rightly in my view to assist the Soviet Union are properly used to accelerate the reform process. There is no point in those resources being made available unless the reform process itself accelerates. The difficult balance that has to be struck is to make sure that the conditionality we ask of the Russians is conditionality that they can meet and that the terms set are not so severe that they are politically undeliverable in Russia.

    That is a matter that will have to be decided collectively; it is certainly a matter that will come up in discussion when Mr. Yeltsin is in Munich and it is a matter that has been discussed at official level between the IMF and representatives of the Russian Government.

    QUESTION:

    [Not translated].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is going to be a difficulty about that. In terms of foreign policy matters, the position is quite clear. Where we can collectively agree foreign policy developments, whether in relation to the Soviet Union or elsewhere, the collective authority of the European Community is that much stronger than the individual position of any one, two or perhaps three or more member states so collectively, where there is a communal interest we will agree collectively but there will be areas where there are necessarily going to be bilateral matters between individual nation states within the Community that are not Community matters. The United Kingdom’s relationship with Hong Kong would be an example. You could find a similar example for a whole series of other countries within the Community. So there is no conflict of the sort you suggest there might be. There are areas of communal interest and there we will combine where it is appropriate to do so; where it is not appropriate to do so, we will conduct our foreign policy entirely bilaterally.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Miyazawa, in your meeting today I understand you explained Japan’s position on the Northern Territories. Were you able to gain the understanding of your interlocutors?

    MR MIYAZAWA:

    I called on Mr. Major to comment on this and I explained the background to this issue and the Japanese Government’s current position on this matter. This is not a matter which directly bears on our relations with the European Community and of course we have been discussing this matter in our bilateral relations with the member countries. We had a meeting with M. Delors as well this morning and therefore I took the opportunity to explain to him Japan’s views on this matter.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, will you be discussing world interest rates with the Japanese Prime Minister in your bilateral talks and will Britain be among those countries who are going to put pressure on Germany to bring down interest rates next week in Munich?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The discount rate in Japan I think is around 3 3/4%, something of that sort. We will discuss world trading matters and I think trading matters embrace a whole series of issues. Whether that particular matter will be substantive to the discussion, I am not sure.

    As to next week, we must wait for next week and see.