The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: South Africa

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Ivory Park Primary School – 21 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at Ivory Park Primary School in Tembisa, on 21st September 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted to be here at Ivory Park today. I would like to thank the Principal, Mr Jonas Lephalala, and his staff and pupils, for making it possible for me to visit your school. I would also like to thank Minister Mufamadi, Premier Sexwale and the PWV members present for accompanying me on this visit. I am grateful to the Community Leaders here today for the insights they have provided into some of the key issues facing your community and others like it throughout South Africa.

    This visit has given me a glimpse of how many ordinary South Africans live. You face tremendous challenges, but also I hope, tremendous opportunities. Communities like yours will help build the new South Africa, just as you have built this school, of which you can be proud.

    We in Britain are ready to help. Immediately after the election we announced that over the next three years we would provide some R340 million of bilateral aid. Yesterday President Mandela and I signed an agreement covering development co-operation between Britain and South Africa in support of the Reconstruction and Development Programme. That sounds like a good agreement on paper – but what does it mean in practice? What does it mean for you?

    It means that we will be working with your Government and with independent organisations to draw up projects to benefit people who have not yet had the kind of advantages that they deserve. We want communities to have better education, improved access to health care, increased opportunities to earn a living, and to be able to live in a secure and peaceful environment.

    When he was released from prison, President Mandela set about encouraging the youth of South Africa to return to school. There is enormous human potential in this country. It is your richest resource. Our aid to education is to help you make the most of that resource – improving the quality of maths, science, and English teaching in schools. I hope that the books we have provided to establish the library in this, and other, schools will also help children discover the pleasure of reading and learning.

    In health our programme aims to support the development of Primary Health Care provision for all communities, to give ordinary people easy access to basic services.

    Local business is the lifeblood of a community. Part of what we can offer is training for individuals in basic work and business skills and advice for people setting up and running businesses in the community. And I am determined to encourage more British business to come to South Africa and to invest here to join the many British companies who are already working with you.

    Community development will be successful only if people are able to go about their daily lives safe from violence, crime and intimidation. The peace monitors here today are one example of how local communities in South Africa have actively taken on responsibility for their own safety and security. The South African Peace Structures are unique. They played an invaluable role in the elections. I am glad we were able to provide assistance to them in this.

    We are now discussing with your Government how we can give further support to community safety and security. Two British Police Officers are already helping the Ministry of Safety and Security to develop basic level training for new recruits, and to review recruitment procedures. As part of a new initiative, we propose to lend you some of the people who have worked successfully on community policing in Britain. They will be assisting Ms Duarte and her team in developing a strategy for community policing for this Province and helping to set up a similar scheme in Western Cape Province.

    Let me end on a lighter note. I spent a marvellous morning at the Alexandra Oval, watching some of Britain’s leading sports-people coaching promising young South Africans. I brought our sports celebrities here to strengthen our sporting ties. One thing that can really bind peoples together is sport. That is why I wanted to mark South Africa’s return to the world sporting community by announcing this morning our plans to carry on these coaching clinics for your young people. And I would like to mark my visit to Ivory Park by presenting the school sports teams with some equipment. I wish you every success with it.

    The rest of the world watched your elections with great admiration. I feel very privileged to have been able to come to South Africa so soon after that historical event, and to have had a chance to meet you all. I will go home with fond memories of my visit to your beautiful country. And the sound of your excellent school choir will remain with me for a long time. Thank you.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to a Business Seminar in Johannesburg – 21 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to a business seminar in Johannesburg on Wednesday 21st September 1994

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Firstly, Mr. Director General, I have some good news for you and that is that I am not going to repeat all that I have just said at luncheon [Laughter] I will be very brief. In a few moments, I will ask Tony Nelson to invite the British team to introduce themselves so that everyone is aware of precisely the strength of the delegation that is here.

    May I just say that Tony Nelson and I and Lynda Chalker, who is also with me today, are very grateful indeed to the South African Chamber of Business for organising this round table meeting.

    Yesterday, the distinguished business group with me met Deputy President Mbeke and Finance Minister Lebemburg[phon] and our businessmen and our scientists indicated a whole range of sectors where they saw prospects for partnership between Britain and South Africa. Deputy President Mbeke in turn assured us that his government’s commitment to the private sector was continuing and of his wish to continue discussions about a range of specific points that were raised by the businessmen. Those discussions are continuing and a detailed response will be available in due course.

    This afternoon, it is the turn of the businessmen to speak directly to the businessmen. Despite the impact of politicians and others, that is how business is really done. Business must talk to business and that can happen this afternoon. I hope this meeting that you have this afternoon will be but the first of many.

    The second thing I want to say is just to stress the scale of the opportunities. I know that the British business team have a number of things they want to discuss, trade both to and from South Africa, investment, perhaps especially through joint partnerships and the contribution that our business can make to South African reconstruction and development programmes especially through training and infrastructure projects and perhaps crucially important in so many respects – not only economic but far beyond that – the proposals to see what British business can do to help the emerging black business sector.

    Finally, Mr. Director-General, I stressed at lunchtime how well the British economy was now performing – steady growth, low inflation, record exports and healthy consumer demand. I know that our team in their turn will be happy to answer South African questions about the opportunities for exports and investment in Britain and in turn I know they will have many questions about the economy here in South Africa. There will be considerable interest also in the prospects of further liberalisation particularly perhaps in the area of tariffs and exchange controls.

    I have asked at the end of this discussion this afternoon our team to give me a full report of your discussions and I look forward very much to hearing the outcome and seeing how the Government might be able to play a role in carrying forward that relationship in the future.

    What I would like to do now is not take your time for this is an afternoon for you to talk to one another and I will ask Tony Nelson to commence and then introduce himself and invite the British business team to introduce themselves as well and I hope you have a very productive afternoon and after that I think it would be appropriate to ask Julian Ogilvie-Thompson to lead the discussion and then I hope it will follow quite freely from there so I trust you will have a very worthwhile and successful afternoon. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in South Africa – 21 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Alexandra Township in South Africa on Wednesday 21st September 1994.

    QUESTION:
    What did you think of the pitch at the Alexandra Oval?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you look over there at that township, it is absolutely appalling and what has actually happened now is that lots of the youngsters from that township have got a sanctuary, they can come here, they have got open space, they have got a cricket field where it didn’t exist, they have got sports facilities, they have got the chance to play and to grow and to learn and that means a great deal I think.

    QUESTION:

    What do you say to those who say there is still too much uncertainty and violence in South Africa for international business to invest here? What is your answer to them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I say they are wrong. International business should invest here. I don’t have a shred of doubt about the confident future that South Africa can look forward to. Anybody who came here and saw for themselves could feel the changed atmosphere; you don’t have to read about it, you don’t have to sit back in your chair abroad and wonder what is happening – come and see, it has changed. People should come here and they should invest here, it will be good for South Africa and it will be good for them too.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes they are, thank goodness, and he is a very great sportsman. If the youngsters learn to play cricket remotely as well as Brian Lara or love it remotely as well as Brian Lara, they will be very lucky youngsters.

    QUESTION:

    What do you admire about his batting?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He is one of the best there is, isn’t he? It is his back-lift that I found fascinating, he clearly sees the ball very early in flight and hits the ball to all parts of the ground. He is a joy to watch and I fear we will be watching all too much of him when the West Indians are next playing England.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Cape Town – 20 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the South African National Assembly, in Cape Town, on Tuesday 20th September 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Madam Speaker and President of the Senate, President Mandela, Members of Parliament.

    It is 34 long years since the last visit to South Africa by a British Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, it is good to be back.

    This Parliament has been elected to embrace both the old and the new. To be here four months after South Africa’s rebirth is intensely moving, to rise and to speak in this building at this time is to sense the weight of history, I am privileged to be here. They have been long years for South Africa, years of isolation, years of hope deferred, years of potential unfulfilled.

    The policy of apartheid isolated South Africa, it isolated it from the West because it affronted democratic values, it isolated it in Africa because of its treatment of Africans and others, it isolated the government from its own people because it would not accept them as equals.

    And yet in another sense South Africa was never isolated, you were never forgotten, you were never out of our debates, you were never out of our affections. We knew that change had to come and when it came it came more rapidly, more comprehensively than we had dared to hope.

    Now South Africa is taking up her responsibilities, her responsibilities to herself, to her peoples, to the wider world. You have made a new beginning.

    Perhaps those of you who sit here in this change do not see perhaps with the perspective of the world the extent to which the world is watching what you have done and applauding the direction in which you are going. You are quite literally a source of hope to a whole continent.

    Today, as we approach the 200th anniversary of Britain’s old Cape colony, I have come here to re-awaken an old friendship, to hold out my hand to the new South Africa, to make a new beginning and to signal a new friendship between your country and mine.

    Mostly this afternoon I wish to look forward, I wish to look forward to see what the United Kingdom and South Africa can do for each other, for the progress we can make together, to our joint role in the Commonwealth of which we are both influential members, and to the contribution we can make both to Africa and to this country and to everywhere in Southern and Central Africa.

    But I also want to look back for a few moments. To make a new beginning we must first look the past in the eye. It is there in our hearts, it is there in our joint history, so let us be frank about what has united us and also about what has divided us.

    We British were relative late-comers to Africa, but in the 400 years since Sir Francis Drake’s epic voyage of 1580 we have been deeply involved with this continent. Trade rather than colonisation was the reason for early British and European contacts with Africa. Benign commerce turned however into the slave trade and at the height of the 18th century into the transportation of over 6 million Africans. The British Parliament outlawed this moral outrage in 1807 and the Dutch followed 7 years later.

    As the 19th century progressed philanthropic explorers and Christian missionaries travelled courageously through Africa, but in turn they unwittingly paved the way for the harsh incursions of rival empire builders, and at the century’s end right and wrong mingled on each side in the Boer wars and left a bitter legacy.

    And yet despite these recent wounds, former adversaries from Britain and South Africa fought side by side in two World wars, in Flanders, in East Africa, in North Africa, in Europe, on the ground and in the air. We in Britain owe those South Africans – from all the country’s main communities – a great debt of gratitude. They joined us in a common cause and they were ready to make, and did make, a common sacrifice.

    Perhaps then we should have seen hints of the future. For the magnanimous spirit which brought once sworn enemies together showed the remarkable capacity of South Africans to put deep rifts behind them.

    Between the World Wars, and afterwards, we divided again. Britain cannot escape her share of responsibility for the tragedy which followed. This notwithstanding the enlightened steps which Britons had already taken in South Africa. The Lovedale Mission in the Eastern Cape, for example, had educated such influential figures as the writer and editor John Tango Jabavu. And from 1916 the University College of Fort Hare provided a platform which was in time to launch President Mandela and many other young people on their long road to leadership.

    But on the debit side of the account, the handing over of power from Westminster was tragically followed by a long period in which the majority was disenfranchised and dispossessed. These injustices have taken the best part of a century to rectify. Harold Macmillan’s clarion call sounded a clear warning but it could not prevent the isolation which enveloped South Africa for too long.

    I have confronted history frankly and with all the easy wisdom of hindsight. Just as the people’s of South Africa have had to put a great deal of their own painful history behind them, so too have the British in Africa. Neither of us should forget, we should remember so that we can learn that we should not saddle the next generation with the mistakes and mis-deeds of forebears.

    That is what the leaders of the Government of National Unity have achieved, they have triumphed over a divided history. President Mandela was a symbol of hope during the years of apartheid. He, perhaps above all, has built on the non-racial legacy of the ANC’s founders. There are many of his colleagues – Albert Luthuli, Oliver Tambo, Robert Sobukwe, and many others – who sadly did not live to see the day of freedom. They would I believe have been proud to be here today and perhaps in the spirit of this Parliament in some fashion perhaps they are here today.

    South Africa’s useful transition owed a huge amount to Nelson Mandela’s extraordinary partnership with F W De Klerk. Without the provision and the profound courage of ex-President De Klerk I do not believe that we would have been here together in this Chamber today. He held steadfast to his course even when the odds seemed almost insuperable.

    Likewise Dr Buthelezi, now Minister for Home Affairs, has over many years played a very prominent part in South Africa’s political life. He wrote some years ago, in 1990: “There is a vastness about black politics in which the major forces of history are at work. A new South Africa will arise as blacks and whites salvage the best and jettison the worst”. As he predicted, this has happened, and in bringing the Inkatha Freedom Party into this government he took a crucial step towards that vision of a new South Africa.

    Upon the backs of many and the wisdom of a few a new South Africa has been born. Acts of reconciliation and statesmanship have made it possible to look back on apartheid, and how old and out of date it now seems. The time that Harold Macmillan longed for has come.

    He said here in Cape Town those many years ago, and again I quote: “I hope, and indeed I am confident, that in another 50 years we shall look back on the differences that exist between us now as matters of historical interest. For as time passes and one generation yields to another, human problems change and fade.”

    He was right, they have done, and now South Africa can look forward to a brighter future.

    Let me turn now to that future. It is founded on two shining assets. First parliamentary democracy and the consent of the people. For all its distinction, its ceremony and its discipline, until this year this parliament failed the ultimate test of legitimacy, the legitimacy that flows from the consent of the governed, the majority of people who fell subject to its laws had no say in choosing the law-makers. It was a parliament in Africa but not a parliament of Africa.

    Now at last all that has changed as across the world we watch in wonder at elections as moving as they were tumultuous. People who for much of their lives languished in prison across the bay now sit here in this chamber to build South Africa as duly elected representatives of the people of South Africa. More remarkably still, they have extended the hand of forgiveness and cooperation to their former captors. Here too to play their part in parliament are those who opposed the Round Table talks yet participated in the elections for the sake of a peaceful outcome to those elections, and those too deserve credit as the new age begins.

    President Mandela spoke in April of “the dream of building a greater South Africa in which South Africans of all racial groups can work together to promote a spirit of reconciliation and of nation building.” Madam Speaker, those who sit in this Parliament, and all those whom they represent, have now joined in that great task of nation building.

    The new South Africa’s second great asset is to have inherited by far the most modern and effective economy and social infrastructure in all of Africa. We British want to work with you as you develop those efforts. Like you, we want all of South Africa’s people to enjoy the fruits of success. And I say this not as a pious sentiment but because we British have a direct interest, a very great stake, in your future. We have a stake because almost a million people of British descent live in South Africa, a huge community. Our peoples are inextricably linked in all manner of public and private relationships, in business, in cultural, sporting, scientific, military, political ties and for a great many people family affections as well. These bonds are a source of pride and confidence and I am confident that they will endure.

    And Britain has a very substantial economic interest in South Africa. British investment in South Africa has an estimated market value of between 40 – 50 billion Rand, this is greater than our investment in the whole of the rest of Africa combined, it shows the depth of Britain’s national commitment to South Africa.

    For Britain, South Africa is already an export market of the same scale as India, close to the markets of Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia and Singapore.

    But this is not one-way, but two-way trade. The United Kingdom is South Africa’s second larges supplier, we are also your second largest export market.

    This is a formidable relationship, but I hope it represents no more than a beginning. The global economy today is marked by the growth and dynamism of its newcomers. South Africa has great human and national resources. The potential is there, the need is there, your people are impatient for results. Yet no government on earth, however benevolent, can develop an economy with strokes of the pen. Prudent management, alertness to the challenges of the market, the acquisition and retention of international business confidence, that global economy offering hope and progress remains one of competition and a drive for success. You have achieved an historic launch towards it and you will need to hold to that momentum over the years ahead.

    Sustaining confidence, meeting in time the high expectations of your people, will come, I firmly believe, if you follow the policies of the open society, as you have set yourself to do. Policies which emphasise the individual and private initiative, policies which reward hard work, policies which encourage free choice and discourage bureaucratic meddling. Policies of competitiveness and openness, a free press and an environment for constructive criticism. An approach that will attract hard-headed investors into South Africa to create jobs, to create prosperity, to create growth, to enable those dreams that exist within South Africa to be met within the years that lie ahead.

    That is the proven approach, the proven approach which has worked in Britain, worked in the West, increasingly in the dynamic economies of the Far East, once developing and now on their way to giant success, and is being adopted also throughout the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe.

    Madam Speaker, Britain will not stand idly by on the sidelines and wait to see how you get on. We want to take part with you in this great and exciting enterprise to the furthest extent that we are able and in all the ways that you think best.

    I want to form a fellowship between Britain and South Africa, a fellowship for the future, a fellowship for reconstruction. Through business, through investment, through development assistance we wish to support your reconstruction and development programme. The British Minister of Africa and Head of the Overseas Development Administration, Baroness Chalker, is here with me today. Over the whole of the past decade her team have been developing projects in townships and rural areas throughout South Africa, planning for South Africa’s future after apartheid. As your transition came closer they stepped up their work.

    But your needs are greater now and in the next 3 years we plan to commit a further 530 million Rand. Lynda Chalker, who I know is well known to many of you here in this Chamber today, will work with your government to channel 350 million Rand into the Reconstruction and Development Programme. The remainder will be contributed through the European Union and the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and I have brought the Chief Executive, Roy Reynolds, with me today so that he can begin to examine how best that can be done as you build the future of the new South Africa.

    And I want also to develop a dynamic partnership in trade and in investment. The Chairmen and Chief Executives of some of Britain’s largest companies have come with me to South Africa and they will be taking part in a Business Round Table in Johannesburg tomorrow. We are already big investors in each other’s country. 68 British companies have made new investments in South Africa over the past four years. The Commonwealth Development Corporation is planning a substantial programme of investment for the future. And to encourage this process, President Mandela and I signed this morning an Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement.

    There is enormous potential for direct trade, for even closer links in finance and services and for partnership between our companies in manufacturing and in exporting. Our businessmen have known one another for years and their willingness to invest is a sign of their confidence in your future.

    Take, for example, the Columbus Project, which has married British technology, engineering and finance to South African resources and manufacturing capability and will produce stainless steel largely for export. Projects like these will generate thousands of jobs in each of our countries and my ambition is to see far more of them develop in the future.

    So do not be surprised to see ever increasing numbers of British businessmen coming to South Africa. They came in July with the President of the Board of Trade, Michael Heseltine, you might just possibly have noticed he was here, people usually do. They have come with me on this occasion, they come in every day of the week under their own steam, with no pressure from governments and no incentives. They come because they wish to and because they believe in your future. They will come next year to the “Opportunity South Africa” Campaign which we are mounting in Cape Town, in Johannesburg and in Durban. And they will come with the backing of 1 billion sterling in official export credit guarantees to smooth the path to trade and increase the relationship between our two countries.

    British business is going to grow in South Africa but partnership is a two-way process. Your businessmen are equally welcome in Britain and we provide a point of entry to the huge European market. One-half of all your exports already go to Europe, well over half of them go to companies which keep their European headquarters in Britain.

    Madam Speaker, business sometimes carries an image of big business. I am not talking only of big business; I am talking of all sorts of businesses; I am talking of small business as well; I am talking of businesses of all sorts; I am talking of established businesses and the businesses that are yet to come and will be popular and successful in the future. A very important aim of our fellowship is to help to encourage small businesses, black businesses and new entrepreneurs. Tomorrow, I shall announce steps under our Soweto Skills Initiative to provide advice for small and medium-sized businesses here and training for entrepreneurs in Britain. [Applause].

    Madam Speaker, let me describe some other areas in which we wish to focus our fellowship; these include products on which President Mandela and I also signed a new Agreement this morning:

    First, fellowship in the community. This means healthcare. We shall provide training for primary healthcare managers and we shall continue our support for the healthcare programmes of the Rural Foundation and the Alexandra Health Clinic. [Applause].

    It means helping community policing. In the run-up to the elections, British police officers became familiar figures in your townships. If they are needed and if you ask for them, they will be ready to come back to help with training, recruitment and with detective work.

    It means education, this fellowship. We can promote English-language skills at university level and the teaching of mathematics, science and English in schools, we can help with basic education for adults and distance education. The British Council is eager to play a larger role in the new South Africa.

    I believe, Madam Speaker, that sport has a huge part to play in the life of a healthy community and as an outlet for the energies of young people. South Africa is one of the world’s great sporting nations; our sportsmen and sportswomen have had memorable encounters over the years; they have had memorable encounters this year on the cricket and rugby fields and at the Commonwealth Games but your sporting opportunities are not yet evenly distributed yet and we would like to help you spread them to each and every part of your community. [Applause].

    I have brought great sporting ambassadors with me. Over the next few days they will be meeting your young people and passing on their skills and most importantly their enthusiasm and I am sure that Sir Colin Cowdrey, Sir Bobby Charlton, Judy Simpson, Rob Andrew and Alec Stewart will inspire your youngsters with their love of sport and with the experiences and the worldwide friendships that it has brought to them. Their coaching sessions are a foretaste of the initiative that we are launching to train 200 sports coaches to work at both community and at national level. We shall take a special interest in the stars of your future even though I may curse the fact that we have done so when they are scoring goals or runs against us in games they play in the future!

    Second, fellowship in farming: We would like to develop sustainable farming systems for small farmers, to set up links with agricultural bodies in the United Kingdom and to work on land resettlement.

    Third, Madam Speaker, we should develop a closer fellowship in science and in technology. There are differing skills in our two scientific communities. The President of the Royal Society, Sir Michael Atiyah, and my own Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir William Stewart, are with me on this visit and will be exploring grounds for closer collaboration with the scientists of South Africa. They will pave the way for a mission of British companies with technical excellence in medical research and pharmaceuticals, water treatment and food production that will be led by the British Cabinet Minister responsible for science, David Hunt, and I believe this area of cooperation can be immensely fruitful for both our nations in the years that lie ahead.

    Fourth, Madam Speaker, there should be a fellowship in public administration and between our two Parliaments. We have experience to share in the training of senior government officials at the centre and in the provinces and I hope you will agree that the members of our two Parliaments – my Parliament and your Parliament – should develop close links and should meet often to share our experiences and to plan the way ahead [Applause] with that in mind, Madam Speaker, we intend to arrange joint seminars between our Members of Parliament and yours and visits to Britain by Provincial Executive Council members.

    Fifth, Madam Speaker, a fellowship is already developing between our defence forces. Your government paid Britain a great compliment in asking us to advise on the integration of the new South African National Defence Force. You have involved us in a task which is vital to future stability and I look forward to visiting the British military assistance team on Wednesday.

    Finally, Madam Speaker, I hope that we can develop a fellowship in international affairs and within the Commonwealth. I see very little to divide us and a great deal that we will be able to do together. When your Deputy Foreign Minister visits London in a few weeks’ time, I shall propose that his talks should become the first in a regular pattern of exchanges between our two Foreign Ministries. [Applause].

    Madam Speaker, our links have deep roots in the past but what I am describing today is not about the past, it is a fellowship for the future, it is already extensive but it, too, is only a beginning. Once launched, I have not a shred of doubt that it will grow and that it will strengthen of its own accord.

    Madam Speaker, I would like for a moment to say a few words about the Commonwealth before turning to the Continent of Africa. With so many Commonwealth members in Africa, the two are of course closely linked. Apartheid, even after South Africa’s departure, struck at the very roots, the very foundations, of the modern multi-racial Commonwealth. The Commonwealth was unanimously against apartheid but deep divisions opened within it, at times they threatened the very existence of the organisation. The Commonwealth was more strongly committed to ending apartheid and very heavily preoccupied with it than any other body in the world. The emergence, therefore of the new South Africa is a particular cause for rejoicing across the Commonwealth. When Deputy President Mbeki presented your new flag to the Commonwealth Secretary-General in Westminster Abbey in July, the congregation burst into spontaneous applause; South African participation in the Commonwealth Games in Victoria was greeted with equal delight and so it was at Lords cricket ground at that memorable moment when South Africa took the field. South Africa’s re-entry to the Commonwealth, her coming home to the Commonwealth where she belongs should do more than just heal a wound, it should provide a stimulus to the Commonwealth family of one-third of the world’s nations.

    Madam Speaker, I am a dedicated believer in the Commonwealth, its values are our values, its values are your values. I hope that between us we can develop an approach to next year’s Conference in Auckland which reinforces the 1991 Declaration of Harare on good government by drawing in particular on your powerful example here in South Africa and by working together, Britain and South Africa can help to bring the very best out of this very precious and wholly unique organisation.

    Madam Speaker, let me now look northwards. The past decade has seen dramatic changes for the better in other continents and regions, dynamic economic growth across Asia, the peace process in the Middle East and in Berlin just fourteen days ago I witnessed the final act of the Cold War, the withdrawal from a once besieged city of the Allied forces which had protected it for so long.

    The end of the Cold War has given Europe the opportunity of a new age of reason, the end of apartheid has brought South Africa into an age of enlightenment. For all the traumatic conflicts and appalling humanitarian disasters which have beset Africa, I believe this Continent too has the chance of a new beginning. The last years of this century and the early years of the next century can be the prelude to a new age for Africa.

    This may strike some, the cynics who are always there, the cynics who said that this day could never have happened and that this parliament could never have met, those cynics are still out there and it may strike those cynics as false optimism to say that there can be a new age for Africa; it may for some when set against the unimaginable horrors of Rwanda or Angola, the conflict in Sudan, the devastation inflicted on millions by the unbridled violence in Somalia and in Ethiopia but think a moment! Consider this region just fifteen years ago: the bitter war in Zimbabwe sucking in the front-line state was unresolved, so was the struggle for Namibia’s independence, civil wars scarred Mozambique and Angola and you know the circumstances in your country and now after a relatively short span only Angola remains at war; there too conflict may, I hope, be moving towards an end which would unlock Angola’s huge riches.

    So how can Africa be reinvigorated? What does it need, what must be done and who can do it, who can play a role to change the life not just of a country but of a whole continent and turn the history of two centuries on its head as we look forward to a better future? What does Africa most need? Africa needs peace and peace needs a combined effort by the United Nations, by external powers with strong African interests, by the Organisation of African Unity. Too often in history, Africa’s stronger countries have been so beset by their own problems that they have been unable to give really effective help to others on their same continent. Of course, your first priority must be to achieve success within South Africa. Nevertheless, despite those immense preoccupations that you have, despite the fact that you only now together are beginning to take up that great task, you have already begun to be more active further afield in Africa. South Africa will have a powerful voice in Africa’s future councils. The whole Continent, from the furthest north right down to your own country at the south, needs a strong, a vigorous and a benign South Africa and Africa needs development. That does not just mean aid.

    Outside aid can do almost nothing without internal self-help and that surely has been one of the lessons we have learned over the last thirty years. The right conclusions are now being drawn, there is now a new mood of economic realism in many parts of Africa, market-place strategies are being adopted, difficult and painful though they may be, the courage is there and governments are beginning to adopt those strategies. No less than 29 countries in sub-Saharan Africa have chosen the hard, the difficult but the necessary and correct course of economic reform.

    Outside help can take many forms. There is of course a need and a place for development aid from multi-lateral institutions and bilaterally. My country alone provides aid to Africa worth nearly 800 million pounds each year. Debt relief is a necessity too and many African countries have benefited from the Trinidad Terms initiative which I launched through the Commonwealth Finance Ministers four years ago. But over the long term, development will come above all from trade, from investment and from infrastructure. The benefits which a free and a prosperous South Africa can bring in this way to your fellow members of the SADC are immense and they are already being felt. South Africans are trading, improving roads and air links and developing communications into the heart of Africa and some of our British companies are proud to be partnering you in that remarkable and necessary work but welcome though it is, this is just the beginning. In aid, in trade and in diplomacy, Britain would like to work closely with South Africa to turn the tide at last in this Continent in which my nation has been so deeply involved for so many years.

    Let me make to you this one final and important point. For years, more years than any of us would care to remember, our energies have been consumed in trying to limit trouble after it has started but it would be far far better – and indeed far less costly in lives and in other ways – if we were able to pre-empt that trouble before it began.

    I believe that an entirely new effort at preventive diplomacy is long overdue. With our friends in Africa and with their agreement and with their participation, Britain wants to develop new mechanisms to head off conflicts before they become unstoppable; before the bloodshed and the misery that we have seen become reality, let us see if we can head them off. We have in mind, for example, setting up regional peacekeeping cells. we need more people trained to mediate, more people trained to act as peace-brokers. We would not need a cumbersome bureaucracy – not now or in any circumstances – but a tight and properly resourced infrastructure that could best be established in Africa itself to deal with the problems that exist in Africa itself.

    These are ideas that we are developing and some of them will be put to the United Nations next week by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, Douglas Hurd.

    Madam Speaker, with the right backing in Africa and with the right backing that I hope and believe we will receive from the new South Africa, we believe that imaginative diplomacy of this kind can help the Continent of Africa towards that elusive new age.

    Madam Speaker, to the early seafarers from Europe, this was not the Cape of Good Hope – it was the “Cape of Storms”, that is how they knew it. In more recent times it has been a Cape of political storms whipped up by the winds of change, storms which have seen many bitter and many painful events in these parliamentary buildings, in this beautiful city, throughout a country that is uniquely blessed by nature.

    In South Africa, the storm has gone. Hope, good hope, has come back to reside in your land.

    Madam Speaker, South Africa’s new beginning is bringing new opportunities, a new fellowship, to our relations and I am delighted that next year, at your invitation, Her Majesty The Queen will pay a State Visit to South Africa just as her father did before her many years ago in 1947. [Applause].

    I believe we can truly say now that we are reunited, reunited in the Commonwealth, reunited as true democracies, reunited as trading partners and as sporting rivals, reunited in seeking solutions for all the problems of Africa and united, as we have always been, in the affection and myriad ties between our two peoples.

    Madam Speaker, South Africa has come out of the storm and into the calm, out of isolation into fellowship, out of division into unity. Now you can light the way for others. You are forging a single non-racial, democratic nation at peace with itself. That is a formidable challenge for the years ahead. You will not lack willing helpers, you will not lack friends and we in Britain will be privileged to be first among them. I am grateful for your attention. [Applause].

  • Mr Mandela’s Speech at Banquet for John Major – 20 September 1994

    Below is the text of President Nelson Mandela’s speech at the banquet held for John Major, held on Tuesday 20th September 1994.

    PRESIDENT NELSON MANDELA:

    Prime Minister John Major,

    Cabinet members and other members of your delegation,

    Madame Speaker,

    President of the Senate,

    Deputy Presidents,

    Dear Guests,

    I am deeply honoured to play host to you, Mr Prime Minister and your delegation.

    For the reasons that you so eloquently outlined in your address to parliament this morning, the United Kingdom and South Africa do have a special relationship.

    It may well be that in the centuries gone by, this was a relationship premised on the dictates of self-interest by the rich and mighty. It may well be that that relationship had its stormy moments over the decades – between our various communities and people.

    But that history has bequeathed on both our countries common attributes in more ways than one. Besides the fact that we are now communicating in one language, there are many positive traits, covering a wide range of areas – not least the system of democracy and culture of human rights – that inspired us over the years, and continue to be a source of reference even today.

    The Government of National Unity is truly appreciative that you have come to South Africa. Coming hot on the heels of the visit by the President of the Board of Trade, Michael Heseltine and indeed many engagements between our government representatives, business-people, sports personalities, cultural performers and others – your presence in South Africa crowns a partnership that we can now say has truly come of its own.

    You made detailed reference earlier today to the agreements that we have signed in many areas of common interest. We, in South Africa, and I refer here both to my Government and the people as a whole, are particularly thankful of the commitment shown by your government to help us deal comprehensively with the legacy of apartheid. We are impressed by your grasp of the difficult problems that we have to grapple with, and your generosity in making a contribution to their solution.

    In this way, Sir, Britain is asserting her role in the front ranks of nations that seek to help in consolidating our young democracy.

    We are committed to strengthening this relationship, conscious of the fact that both our nations will benefit tremendously from it. To this end, many issues have been broached during our discussions, including the meeting this afternoon with the business representatives in your delegation. On our part we shall ensure that all these matters are followed up and concluded.

    Our country has taken her rightful place within the Commonwealth of Nations. We saw it as entirely natural, that immediately after the establishment of the Government of National Unity, we should take this step. For, we are mindful of the many economic, political, cultural, sporting and other mutual benefits that will accrue from this relationship.

    We are pleased that Her Majesty, the Queen has accepted our invitation to South Africa and we are eagerly awaiting her historic visit.

    Mr Prime Minister,

    The attainment of democracy in our country has made it possible for us to forge a new partnership. In the long years of difficult endeavours to this end, we enjoyed the support of British people and various governments. Today, we meet at the beginning of a new dawn in our relations. And we are confident that these will grow from strength to strength.

    My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Please pray be up standing, for a toast to Her Majesty the Queen.

  • Mr Major’s Arrival Statement in Cape Town – 20 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s arrival statement in Cape Town, made on Tuesday 20th September 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Deputy President, Mr Premier, Ladies and Gentlemen. I would like to say first what a thrill it is to be here at last and how good it is to meet so many old friends. Only four years ago when I became Prime Minister, very few people would have predicted this moment, that in 1994 a British Prime Minister would set foot in a non-racial democratic South Africa. And yet it has happened. Today we stand at the dawn of a new age for South Africa, a new age when with faith and hope and courage all things are possible.

    Norma and I have long wanted to come here. We may not know South Africa but we do know South Africans. As well as you, Mr Deputy President, President Mandela, many other South Africans have been friends of ours and have visited Downing Street in recent years. These are friendships that Norma and I look forward to renewing with very great pleasure.

    Your elections earlier this year evoked admiration, emotion, excitement, thousands of miles away in Britain and across the world, they opened a huge opportunity not only for South Africa but for South Africa’s friends.

    I am not here alone today but with a large group of those friends – the Minister for Africa, Lynda Chalker, well known to many people in this country; and Tony Nelson, the Minister of State at the Treasury; with captains of industry and of finance; with the President of the Royal Society, Sir Michael Atir, one of our most eminent scientists; and with Sir Peter Newson, a leading educationalist; and I have with me also five sporting Ambassadors whose names will be familiar not only here but throughout the whole of the sports loving world, Sir Colin Cowdrey, Sir Bobby Charlton, Judy Simpson, Alex Stewart, and a recent visitor returning, Rob Andrew, whom I am sure you will remember.

    This team represents only a small cross-section of the interests which Britons and South Africans have in common.
    I have the privilege later this morning of addressing your Parliament. On that occasion I shall be able to say that we are here to make a new beginning, here to make new friends, and here because in so many areas of life Britons and South Africans have a tremendous amount to offer one another.

    For the next three days my party and I are going to spread ourselves across South Africa, we intend to make the best use of every single moment we have. There is work to be done and we long to get on with it.

    Thank you for your welcome.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Nelson Mandela – 20 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with Nelson Mandela, made in Cape Town on Tuesday 20th September 1994.

    PRESIDENT MANDELA:

    We have signed several agreements on investment, aid and on the assistance we are getting from the British Aid Team, and it was covered a wide range of issues on which [inaudible].

    QUESTION (Mike Brunson, ITN):

    Mr President, since this is such an historic day could I invite you to recall whether you heard the original “Winds of Change” speech in 1964 and where you heard it and all that has happened since then?

    PRESIDENT MANDELA:

    It was a very exciting speech. It was difficult at that time to comprehend the magnitude of what was going to happen in Africa and the British Prime Minister had a vision which was very altruistic and which propelled the movement for liberation all over the country, and especially in our country. And one tended to forget that in the intervening period, but now of course with the impending visit of the Prime Minister we remember that speech was a great speech indeed and I think it did a great deal to fuel the movement for liberation of the country.

    QUESTION:

    Where did you hear it yourself though?

    PRESIDENT MANDELA:

    I was around, you have to remember that I was around for a long time…

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Where would you like to see the British aid money spent most?

    PRESIDENT MANDELA:

    It is not a question of where I would like to see. British aid has been well structured in various fields – education, military training, economic – and all these are very important aspects of our lives and I think British aid has been well structured.

    QUESTION:

    Could you tell us something about the agreements you signed this morning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have signed a range of agreements. The one that the President did not mention was an agreement that we have signed for greater scientific cooperation. What we are effectively seeking to do is to work as well as we can with the new South Africa in terms of business, in terms of helping to redevelop and restructure the country in terms of the needs that exist, in terms of sharing the expertise that exists in the United Kingdom and exists in South Africa. We both have a great deal I think that we can gain from one another and the sum of the parts working together in many areas will be greater than the whole. So I think there is a great opportunity for us. I have brought with me on this occasion a very senior collection of businessmen, the President of the Royal Society, my own Scientific Adviser, a very senior educationalist, Sir Peter Newson, and of course some sporting Ambassadors. And I have brought them to illustrate the sheer breadth of the historical links that have existed between my country and. South Africa and as an indication of the areas in which we can develop and extend those links in the future. That is not an inclusive list but I think it is a pretty good start.

    QUESTION:

    Britain has slipped over the past years from 1st in the list of South Africa’s trading partners to 4th, would you like to see yourself back in first place, do you think you could and how could you achieve that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can give you some very good news this morning, since you say we are fourth, because we are back to second. So we are heading in the right direction and I have every ambition to see it improve.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I truly hope so.

    QUESTION:

    President Mandela, the British government in the past were not always the greatest supporters of the ANC, have you managed to put all that behind you now?

    PRESIDENT MANDELA:

    There are two ways of looking at this problem, one superficial, and the one taking account of what goes on [indistinct] I can assure you that our struggle has been unique in that it has received support from a wide range of governments, Conservative, Liberal and radical, and I think that the support we got from the British government, to which no publicity was given, has been tremendous in ensuring that some of the democratic changes that have taken place did occur.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] what were the below the surface, less superficial, measures taken by the British Government to support your cause?

    PRESIDENT MANDELA:

    I can assure you that if I had any complaint against the British government that this would be the appropriate time to voice it, and the fact that I am doing nothing of the sort shows how grateful I am for what came to us below the surface.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will give your questioner a practical example, if I may. Over the last 10 years or so, perhaps a practical example is actually living proof with me with Lynda Chalker behind me who has been Minister for Overseas Development for a very long time. Throughout the past decade she has been structuring assistance, structuring aid actually to help in some of the most unprivileged parts of South Africa, now that is a single illustration which many could be given and I hope it will put your mind at rest.

    QUESTION:

    President Mandela, could I ask about your relations with the [indistinct] Royal Family at this time?

    PRESIDENT MANDELA:

    My relations with both His Majesty King [indistinct] are very good. We all face problems from the point of view of persuading our respective constituencies to work as harmoniously together as I and His Majesty and Chief Buthelezi, we are not alarmed over any developments because we believe we have the capacity to address them and to get things to move to normalcy in the near future.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] will never meet Chief Buthelezi again.

    PRESIDENT MANDELA:
    I am aware of that. The [indistinct] is an event [indistinct] not on the basis of tribal affiliation but an event which should be celebrated by the whole of South Africa. My intention to take part in those celebrations was to [indistinct] to transform what is now a tribal to a national affair. But we have not done sufficient spadework to convince the people on the ground that this is how we should handle this event. But I have no doubt that we will be able to convince everybody that we should open up this event so that it should be celebrated with the dignity that it deserves.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, without wanting to pre-empt your speech this morning how will you characterise what you are going to say to Parliament here today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I reflect a little on the past, but the bulk of what I have to say about the future, about the prospects of a wholly new age for South Africa and over a longer timescale a wholly new age for the rest of Africa as well, and I will touch on practical ways in which I think that might be brought about in partnership.

    QUESTION:

    Could you very briefly sum up for us the the importance of the relationship that you believe there is between the two countries?

    PRESIDENT MANDELA:

    The [indistinct] of our relationship can never be over-emphasised. I did indicate inside here to the British Prime Minister that our relations date from times immemorial and it is our task to strengthen them. I am convinced that on both sides that there is the will and capacity to contribute towards the strengthening this relationship. It is in the interests of both countries and our respective people that that relationship should be intensified. And I think that the Head of Government was prepared to play that role.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think our relationships are sufficiently close for me simply to say that I entirely agree with what the President said, nothing more needs to be said.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on South Africa Visit – 20 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s September 1994 visit to South Africa, from his memoirs “John Major – The Autobiography”.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I visited South Africa in September 1994, five months after the first fully democratic elections in the country’s history, and addressed both Houses of Parliament. There was a limit to how much practical help Britain could give out of an overseas aid budget that is targeted at the very poorest nations, but I promised £100 million of assistance. Afterwards, at lunch – in the room in which, over thirty years earlier, Harold Macmillan had delivered his famous ‘Wind of Change’ speech – I saw something of the remarkable spirit that had taken the country into the new era. Former inmates of the notorious prison on Robben Island sat chatting with white MPs who had served in the previous National Party government.

    That trip had many memories. After addressing the Parliament I flew to Johannesburg accompanied by British sports stars Alec Stewart, Judy Simpson, Rob Andrew and Bobby Charlton. Colin Cowdrey, who had brought the South African cricket administrator (and former Test captain) Ali Bacher to see me in 1991 to seek to help readmit the South African team to international competition, was there to meet us. In Alexandria township I opened a new sports ground built with British funds whilst the British stars played pied piper to the children and began impromptu coaching sessions. In the nets, to my great satisfaction, I bowled out Steve Tshwete, the South African Sports Minister, with my first ball. It was one of the happiest of visits.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the 1994 Economic Summit at Naples – 11 July 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement on 11th July 1994 regarding the 1994 Economic Summit at Naples.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Naples summit of 8 to 10 July, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have placed the communique of the seven-nation economic summit and the chairman’s statement on the eight-nation political summit in the Library of the House.

    The summit process is changing in two important ways. In 1991, I invited the then Soviet leader to join the seven for a meeting after the London summit. This practice was continued in 1992 and again in Tokyo last year. I discussed a new format with President Yeltsin in February. That was to invite Russia to become a full and equal partner in our political meeting. That was accepted and President Yeltsin’s involvement brought an extra dimension to the political aspects of the summit. He made it clear that Russia will co-operate closely on the most difficult international problems, from Bosnia to North Korea ; and he was warmly welcomed in that spirit.

    The second change is that the summits are returning to the informality and free debate which characterised the early meetings 20 years ago. The move away from set-piece speeches and pre-scripted discussions made it the most wide-ranging summit which I have attended. We shall allow even more time for unscripted discussions next year at Halifax.

    We spent some time discussing international institutions. Many of the main world bodies–the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions, for example–have been with us for nearly half a century. The world has changed enormously in that period and so have some, but not all, of our institutions. For example, the World Trade Organisation will take over as a permanent body in place of GATT, itself originally a temporary structure. But, generally, we concluded that we should think about further changes to those institutions which may be needed in the future. We need to decide how best to meet the huge tasks confronting the different parts of the United Nations and how to respond to new economic problems. We may need to revitalise those institutions. We shall all consider that between now and the summit at Halifax next year. If we conclude that changes are necessary, we shall begin the process of bringing them about. The summit countries alone cannot make those changes, but it is right for us to ask whether they may be necessary.

    On economic matters, the summit built on the G7 countries jobs conference held in Detroit earlier this year. The world economy is now emerging from recession. At Naples, there was wide agreement on the policies that the G7 countries now need to pursue : free trade, flexible labour markets, deregulation, policies that help and encourage unemployed people back in to work, and investment in education and training. Those themes will be familiar to the House, because they precisely match the policies that this Government have been pursuing. They were all warmly endorsed by the G7.

    Further trade liberalisation is an important part of the G7’s strategy. The completion of the Uruguay round was a significant achievement that will increase trade and growth right around the world. We need the various agreements to be ratified by the end of this year. Thereafter, we should consider further initiatives on trade and on economic liberalisation.

    The summit proposed additional debt relief for the poorest countries. That is something I have long been pressing for. At Naples, we agreed on two specific measures to help those countries facing special difficulties : first, more help with debt payments, taking the level of relief above 50 per cent.–to two-thirds and perhaps beyond ; and, secondly, reductions in the stock of debt. We also agreed to explore ways of getting the international financial institutions to use their resources more effectively to help the poorest and most indebted countries.

    Since I introduced the Trinidad terms initiative four years ago, 22 countries have benefited, with nearly $3 billion of debts written off thus far. The new proposals agreed at Naples will provide further help to lift a burden from some of the world’s poorest countries. We urged that there should be more help for the Palestinian authority, which is setting up an entirely new administration in Gaza and Jericho and needs to encourage new enterprises. Britain is contributing £75 million, bilaterally and multilaterally, over three years, including the extra help for running costs and technical assistance announced last week.

    Likewise, in South Africa, Britain has allocated £100 million to transitional aid over the next three years. South Africa’s re-entry into the economic mainstream could do much to revitalise southern and central Africa.

    We also spent some time on Ukraine, where there is an evident need to restructure the economy. Given her position and size, it is important to have both a stable and prosperous Ukraine. The summit countries and the international financial institutions are keen to help that process, which must include reform of the energy sector. We are putting forward an action plan to close the Chernobyl nuclear plant, where there are continuing worries about the risk of another accident. Our plan will require reform by the Ukrainians as well as providing significant financial help from the west. We agreed also to replenish the nuclear safety account.

    On the environment, the G7 were concerned about the slow progress in meeting the commitments made at the Earth summit in Rio, and agreed to speed this up. Britain itself has fully met her commitments under the action plan agreed after Rio by the Group of Seven. We have published the plans required under the climate change convention. We all agreed to report further progress at next year’s G7 summit. At the Commonwealth conference last year and the European Council in Corfu, I argued for more action by Governments to oppose transnational crime, drug trafficking and money laundering. This approach was strongly supported at Naples. Where necessary, we are urging countries around the world to introduce legislation to prevent money laundering.

    Bosnia was discussed in my bilateral meetings with both the Russian and American Presidents and, of course, at the political summit itself. Collectively and individually, our Governments will urge the parties to accept the Contact Group’s settlement proposal. We are completely united on that point. There is a risk of a wider and more intense conflict if this opportunity for peace is not taken. Later this week my right hon Friend the Foreign Secretary, together with the French Foreign Minister, will visit the former Yugoslavia to impress this point on the parties.

    We need assurances about North Korea’s nuclear programme, including compliance with the non-proliferation treaty and with International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The summit supported the efforts of the United States and of South Korea to develop a dialogue with the north, and I hope that they will be resumed when North Korea has a new leader.

    In Yemen, the recent, brutal civil war has left fears about the country’s future stability. Iraq’s support for the north has caused justifiable concern to our friends in Saudi Arabia and Oman, both of which border Yemen. The summit called on the Yemeni authorities to resolve internal difficulties without repression. We were concerned that Yemen would become a new source of instability in the region. I have highlighted the key political and economic points of what was effectively two summits in one. Summitry has proliferated over the past 20 years. I believe that we need a critical approach to make the best use of these occasions. Many worthwhile changes are now taking effect, and the Naples meeting was much more valuable as a result. I commend the outcome of the summit to the House.

    Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South): There is much in the communique that we welcome, and much on which the Prime Minister touched only lightly, if at all. In particular, we welcome the communique ‘s strong emphasis on the need for action to create jobs, to promote growth and the increased wealth that that creates ; to tackle the damage being done to our environment and especially the problem of Chernobyl, to which the Prime Minister referred, and to work with the Ukraine to remove its nuclear stockpile. I join the Prime Minister in urging acceptance of the settlement proposals for Bosnia since, unsatisfactory though some may think them, continued conflict could surely only be worse.

    We were also pleased to see in the communique that a start is being made on the reform and modernisation of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. After talking about third-world debt relief on Trinidad terms for four years, it may actually begin to happen on a wider basis.

    However, does the Prime Minister acknowledge that for many in the developing world, money will still just be going around in circles with money freed by bilateral debt relief going to the World bank or the IMF instead unless steps are taken towards multilateral debt relief, building on the approach already adopted ?

    Although the Prime Minister spoke this morning of the advantages of increased international trade, does he accept that unless we find some way of oiling the financial wheels and promoting international support for the economic reconstruction and development to which he referred–in South Africa, the middle east as well as in eastern Europe–it simply will not happen ?

    We welcome the reference in the communique to the fresh allocation of special drawing rights for which the IMF and the new members from eastern Europe have called. However, can the Prime Minister tell us anything about the time scale for that decision and what discussions were held on other measures, perhaps, as in the past, financed from IMF gold stocks ?

    Will the role of the G8 be reviewed alongside the IMF and the World bank, as John Smith urged earlier this year, exploring the idea of an Economic Council of the United Nations alongside the Security Council and drawing in therefore, as the G8 at present fails to, other major economic players such as China and South America ?

    The Prime Minister’s principal contention in what he said about the economic summit is that the rest of the world is following Britain’s lead and that this because of our proven economic superiority. I can only describe that observation as self-deluding since it is supported neither by the words of the communique –and I urge Conservative Members to read the communique in the Library–nor by the facts. As anyone who reads the communique will discover, it calls for the co-ordinated pursuit of growth, job creation, skills enhancement, support for innovation and infrastructural renewal. Those are all Labour party policies since before the last election and they were all denounced by the Prime Minister as irrelevant and wrong. That leads one to wonder why he signed a communique which calls for precisely those measures.

    The Prime Minister should recognise that, if those words in the communique that he signed are to be more than empty words, a complete change of British Government policy will be required. Is it not the case that, far from endorsing the Government’s recipe of never-ending deregulation and lower wages, in the discussions the American Secretary of Labour called it

    “part of the problem not part of the solution”

    and that, although there is a call in the summit communique to reduce employment costs, this Government have increased them by pushing up national insurance and loading sick pay costs on employers ?

    The Prime Minister must also be aware that the truth is that, while all our competitors are keeping, and in some cases increasing, minimum wage protection–for example, in France and in some parts of the United States–and bringing measures like extra family leave into train, their record on growth, skills and job creation is better than ours.

    Is not the real message of the communique that our more successful rivals are pursuing, not the policies of this Government, but the path that we advocate? The Prime Minister and his colleagues show every sign of failing, yet again, to understand why they are failing Britain.

    The Prime Minister: I must say that that was a very novel interpretation, on which I shall comment in a few moments. I welcome the support that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) offered on a number of proposals in the communique relating to jobs, energy, environmental matters and on the approach that we are proposing on Bosnia. I also welcome what she said about the Trinidad terms. A substantial amount of debt has been written off already, but there is further to go. Some countries have been resistant to implementing the Trinidad terms, but I think that the Paris Club can now move ahead as a result of the agreement reached at the G7 in the past few days. That will be immensely helpful to many poor countries.

    As the right hon. Lady intimated, there are other ways of helping poor countries. It was rather masked in the arcane language of the communique , but we looked at using the IMF’s gold stocks to assist not only the very poorest countries in the world, but areas such as Gaza and South Africa, where there is a self-evident need for help. That is a wise way for us to proceed. In terms of job creation in those countries, the opening of markets, the liberalisation of trade and the elimination of debt will all provide an incentive for growth that will show within those countries–providing we are able to proceed with those proposals. The right hon. Lady then moved on to other matters and quoted rather selectively from the communique . Alas, she missed some points, such as a number of structural measures to reduce labour rigidities, which add to employment costs or deter job creation, eliminate excessive regulations, which will ensure that indirect costs of employment are reduced where possible, and to pursue active labour market policies.

    The right hon. Lady’s eyes apparently skimmed past a range of other things as she quoted from the communique . If she thinks that all those measures are Labour party policies, my hon. Friends and I will be very pleased to have learnt, at last, what it is that the Labour party stands for in terms of economic policies. As for the right hon. Lady’s concluding remarks about the relative performance of the United Kingdom, that is an old ground of dispute between us. I do not agree with her interpretation, because there is no doubt that our country is leading the European Community out of recession–there can be no doubt about that, because our growth this year is likely to be twice as high as that of any other European Community country. I find it astonishing that, when this country is doing well and companies and the work force are doing well, that is something that the Opposition appear to regret deeply. I am sorry to learn that.

    I must tell the right hon. Lady that we are leading the country and Europe out of recession. It is extremely good news for the world economy that the American growth now exists, that the Germans are now out of recession and that the G7 as a whole is moving back into growth by following the sort of policies that have brought this country out of recession, and not the policies that the Opposition advocate, which would take it straight back into recession.

    Mr. David Howell (Guildford): Does my right hon. Friend accept that he did an excellent and workmanlike job for Britain at the Naples summit ? He is to be congratulated on it. Like my right hon. Friend, I hope very much that the Contact Group will succeed in bringing peace of some kind to Bosnia. Can he explain why the Serb Bosnians should cease their fighting, after a 100-year ambition to expand their areas of control, when they have an unending supply of arms and equipment from Serbia proper? Has not the time come, particularly as Mr. Yeltsin is more on side now, to strengthen the embargo against Serbia proper in all sorts of ways? That would bring home to the Serbians and Serbian Bosnians that they cannot go on defying world opinion and that they must come to the peace table with everyone else.

    The Prime Minister: In his last few words, my right hon. Friend set out clearly the message which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Minister will take to the Serbs in the course of the next few days. It must be made clear to Serbia that Serbia and the next generation of Serbians have no future unless they are prepared to come to an agreement that is satisfactory to the world community. They cannot continue as they are and they can certainly expect no relaxation of sanctions or any international help until and unless they reach an agreement that will bring the fighting to an end.

    For some time, both the Serbians and, on occasion, other parties have moved away from the settlement that could have been reached in the belief that, if they waited, they would get a better deal in the future. There is now no doubt that the international community is determined to do whatever it can to enforce a settlement. I find it striking that each of the political heads of the G8, including the President of Russia, were determined that now was the opportunity to put every conceivable pressure on all the parties to come to a satisfactory settlement.

    Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that the forthcoming mission of the Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Secretary, backed by President Yeltsin, to try to persuade the warring parties in Bosnia that they must accept the peace settlement, however imperfect, deserves the united support of this House?

    On the economic section of the communique, will the Prime Minister forgive me if I do not quote bits of Liberal Democrat policy in its support, following the pattern already set? On the institutional changes contemplated in the world financial bodies, will he assure us that he will also look at their lack of accountability to member Governments and member Parliaments for the policies that they pursue?

    Finally, does the Prime Minister accept that, although the communique is less specific than his statement, we welcome the new debt relief proposals that he has achieved? He will know that the all-party Africa caucus lobbied the Chancellor before the meeting, and he saw us last year. We are deeply grateful for the progress that has been made. It will certainly bring widespread relief to at least six of the poorest countries in Africa.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his final point. As soon as we have moved a little further with debt relief, we need to look again at the countries that are eligible for it. Some countries fall on just the wrong side of the debt relief line currently available under the Trinidad terms, but those countries may be helped by the point which the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked me about–the proceeds of institutional gold sales by the IMF. That would not necessarily be restricted to Trinidad terms countries.

    On the institutional changes, accountability certainly needs to be examined. That is perfectly clear. The underlying reason for that examination is simply to determine whether, after so many years, the institutions themselves are still relevant to the problems that are likely to face us in the next 10 or 15 years. By “institutions”, I mean not only the Bretton Woods institutions–the IMF and the World bank–but we need also to look at the United Nations, the development of NATO in the light of “Partnership for Peace”, and the enlargement of the European Union, as well as the changes that we have already seen with GATT becoming the World Trade Organisation. Those are not matters which the G7 can determine but, in all those institutions, the G7 countries are leading members.

    If we decide that there needs to be some reform, at that stage we shall wish to consult other members of those institutions in an attempt to bring about the reform. But I emphasise that the G7 does not see itself as a directorate that can impose those changes on the institutions. We are simply making the point that now is the time to examine them to see what changes are necessary.

    I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Bosnia and I am grateful for his support for the visit of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Several hon. Members rose

    Madam Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members seek to question the Prime Minister. I am now looking for one brisk question each and, if I may, brisk answers.

    Sir Peter Emery (Honiton): Was further consideration given to the extension of the non-proliferation treaty to those countries that have not signed it? Will Japan support any action that might be taken against North Korea if the situation deteriorates rather than progresses?

    The Prime Minister: There was, in discussion, unequivocal support by all the G7 members, including Japan–and of course Russia as part of the G8–for the indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty in 1995.

    Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): The summit communique reads remarkably like the election manifestos put out by my hon. Friends who are candidates for the Labour leadership– [Interruption.] –so, obviously, there are good things in it. In particular, I welcome the movement of the G7 into the G8, including Russia, and the arrangements for a very searching 50-year anniversary review of the institutions set up in Bretton Woods. On the question of aid, can the Prime Minister tell us what figure he hopes to put on the further concessions of debt relief as compared with the $3,000 million debt relief already gained ?

    The Prime Minister: I think that it is difficult to put a precise figure on it. I will examine the scope for further reduction, and I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with a figure. It will be a very substantial figure indeed, but I cannot immediately put a figure on it.

    On the earlier points, I am pleased to have the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the review of the institutions. I was a little surprised to hear of the apparent similarity between the communique and the manifestos of the potential leaders of the Labour party, which I have read with great interest– [Interruption.] I am not sure that my vote would swing the result–not least, though, alas, he is not with us this afternoon, that of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who, despite what was in the G7 communique , said on 4 July :

    “Deregulation has been an economic failure”.

    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford): Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend’s reply to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) about nuclear proliferation, does he agree that one of the biggest problems is that North Korea and China are at the apex of a chain of proliferation which has already taken place, and that many countries in the middle east, not least Iran, Iraq and Libya, have significant capability and within the next five or six years are likely to have a launch facility which will be able to strike parts of Europe? Does he agree that now is the time for us to accept that proliferation has to some extent failed, and to find new measures?

    The Prime Minister: I am disinclined to accept the concept that proliferation has failed because I think that it is extremely important that we press the case for non-proliferation whenever and wherever we have the opportunity. It is not always entirely clear precisely who has the capacity to launch nuclear weapons and who has them. I wish it were a good deal clearer than it sometimes seems to us. But there is no doubt that we need to maintain pressure. My hon. Friend mentioned a number of countries which we have been pressing precisely on this point. He could probably name others, and so could I. However, we intend to continue to press for non-proliferation both through the treaty and, of course, bilaterally.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): What did President Yeltsin say to his colleagues about sanctions against Iraq ? How does the Prime Minister feel about continuing sanctions and the shortage of water filters and water pumps in the sweltering heat of Baghdad which will most certainly lead to massive disease in the Euphrates and Tigris valleys ?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows of the humanitarian options that are available, and he and I have had the opportunity of discussing them in the past. President Yeltsin did not express a view on this matter, but Russia, of course, has supported the imposition of sanctions on Iraq, and continues to do so.

    Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham): Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Group of Seven considered the long-term economic impact on the rest of the world of the growing industrial strength of Asiatic countries, not only Japan, Korea and Taiwan, as it was, but now increasingly India, China and half a dozen other countries?

    The Prime Minister: We did not specifically discuss those countries in that sense, but in all the economic discussions of employment and growth, the changing position of south-east Asia and the Pacific basin countries was ever present in our minds. Many of the countries that were relatively captive markets to western states 20 or 25 years ago are now not only competing with those previous supplier countries but competing very successfully with them in different parts of the world. That is one of the matters that I think underlies the concern that we have for the maximum amount of industrial efficiency in this country, because competitiveness is far greater as a result of what has happened in the Pacific basin than it has ever been before.

    Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the contribution that Her Majesty’s Government are making to the rebuilding of Palestine. Would he be good enough to give the House some idea of what contributions his G7 colleagues are likely to make to that purpose, and does he consider them anything like sufficient for the immense job that faces President Arafat?

    The Prime Minister: It is, as the hon. Gentleman says, an absolutely immense job. Apart from our bilateral contributions, there will be bilateral contributions of various sizes from a number of the other G7 countries, and also a substantial collective contribution from the European Union. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with details of the figures that we have.

    Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington): May I return to the issue of non-proliferation in relation to nuclear matters ? Was there any consideration at the summit of measures that it might be right for the G7 to take–and Russia to take–to encourage other sources of energy in countries that might be tempted to go nuclear precisely because they see nuclear power as their best chance for the future ?

    The Prime Minister: There was no discussion on that point–time did not permit detailed discussions on it. We are primarily concerned to make sure that the non-proliferation treaty is extended and that it sticks. As my hon. Friend will know, a large number of countries are at the moment disinclined to sign it; we are very concerned to make sure that they do.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Another summit, another jamboree. Why did not the Prime Minister tell us about the part of the communique that he had to deliver at the end of the summit in respect of those two Tory Members of Parliament with their noses in the trough?

    On the subject of deregulation, why should big business have to carry the on-costs of lining the pockets of Tory Members to put down questions ? In some of the other G7 Parliaments, the rule is : one Member of Parliament, one job only. If people cannot manage on £31,000 a year, they should not put up for the job.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman no doubt thinks that these summits are enormous fun. Set against the attractions of a cricket final at Lords they do pale to a certain extent, at least for me. The matters mentioned, with his usual delicacy, by the hon. Gentleman were not discussed at the summit.

    Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South): When the Foreign Secretary goes on his crucial mission this week–we all wish him success in that–will he and his colleagues see President Milosevic, Mr. Karadzic and General Mladic together, to impress on them not only how seriously the G8 view their appalling actions but also the fact that those who are responsible for war crimes will be brought to book?

    The Prime Minister: I am confident that my right hon. Friend will meet each and every one of those gentlemen, but I very much doubt whether he will meet them together. There are likely to be separate meetings. He certainly proposes to see the leaders of the Serbs and the Bosnian Serbs, and I have no doubt that he will make my hon. Friend’s final point to them.

    Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool): Did the Prime Minister, in one of his scripted or unscripted moments in Naples, discuss the presidency of the Commission? In his quest for anyone but Dehaene to succeed Delors, can he tell the House who now is in the frame and what qualities they have?

    The Prime Minister: That too was not a matter for the G7 summit. There was no formal discussion at Naples of the Commission presidency.

    Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland): Go on.

    The Prime Minister: I shall repeat it for the right hon. Gentleman’s benefit : there was no formal discussion in Naples of the Commission presidency. It would be wholly wrong for four member states to form a caucus. [Laughter.] The House is well aware of the objection that I took to that on a previous occasion when there seemed to be a caucus. What is needed is thorough consultation between all 12 states, and that is what the German presidency has in hand.

    Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest): The conclusions of the summit properly recognised the importance to economic growth of deregulation and labour market reform–despite the somewhat spurious claims of the Johnnies-come-lately on the Opposition Benches. Would my right hon. Friend agree that, in a European context, subsidiarity is particularly important? Does he agree with Klaus Kinkel, the German Foreign Minister, who recently said that subsidiarity provides the opportunity to roll back European decision making? Is not that evidence that European decision makers are at last coming round to the British view on subsidiarity?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly know that the German presidency proposes to take subsidiarity a good deal further during its presidency of the European Union in the second half of this year. I have not heard the particular quote by Mr. Kinkel, but it is certainly one to which I would subscribe, and it is an indication of the extent to which the terms of debate in Europe have changed.

    Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East): If the Government think that they are dragging us up the economic hill, taking the G7 countries behind us, who took us down in the first place?

    The Prime Minister: One might ask the same question of all the G7 countries which suffered recession.

    Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight): In three weeks’ time, the Bank of England will be celebrating 300 years of survival. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best news to come out of the summit is that the G7 central banks, and the Bank of England in particular, would no longer be required to chase the US dollar all over the Pacific?

    The Prime Minister: The tercentenary of the Bank of England is a remarkable occasion : the bank has been an astonishing institution over the years. My hon. Friend makes his point with great clarity.

    Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton): Virtually the whole House will approve of the G7 putting up the money to close down Chernobyl nuclear power station. When is that likely to come about? There are other nuclear power stations of similar design in the former Soviet bloc. Will money be put up to close them down as well?

    The Prime Minister: We have reached agreement on the way to help the Ukrainian authorities to close the Chernobyl plant. That involves closing the remaining reactors and assisting to complete new reactors with modern safety standards. That will now have to be discussed with the Ukraine. That will happen speedily, and I hope that the resources can then be made available. We have centred on Chernobyl because of the nature of that reactor and its condition, which is one of the special concerns.

    Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): Given that much of the nervousness in world financial markets appears in part to be due to worries about long- term inflation, what discussion took place on inflation prospects? Were other countries present able to point to the good news on inflation such as that we had today on factory prices?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, there was some discussion on inflation. There is no doubt that at the moment inflationary tendencies are subdued, not just in this country but in other countries. It is certainly the intention of the G7 Governments, as far as it is practicable, to keep inflation at the lowest possible level. I hope that that will have its long-term impact on the markets as soon as it is apparent to them that that is happening.

    Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie): The news that the United Nations and its organisations and the international financial institutions are to be reviewed is welcome, but is not this a matter of such importance that it would be appropriate for the Government to issue a consultation paper so that there could be widespread debate in this country on those matters?

    The Prime Minister: We first have to consider the matter ourselves. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am not immediately attracted to issuing a White Paper. I think that the first process is for us to consider as a Government–and I accept that it is certainly a reasonable matter for a debate in the House–whether we think that changes are necessary and, if so, what they might be. However, I would prefer to engage in discussion with other Governments before deciding what to press for. Although I hope that other people would not hesitate about letting us have their views, I am not at the moment attracted to publishing a White Paper.

    Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): May I draw attention to the pressure, according to the communique , that the G7 countries and Russia are putting on the Haitian junta to step down? In his campaign for democracy and human rights, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the last Latin American republic that has still not returned to democracy and human rights–Cuba?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right : Haiti is a matter of some concern to a number of countries and, of course, particularly, for self-evident reasons, to the United States. We should certainly like to see the restoration of President Aristide and democratic government. That is equally the view of the other G7 Heads of Government.

    Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): The Prime Minister spoke of the concern of the G7 Governments for the poorest in the world. Was he able to tell them when his Government would reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP for overseas aid?

    The Prime Minister: No Government was able to give a commitment as to when that would be. As the hon. Lady knows, I think that we have the sixth largest aid programme in the world. I think that our record is unequalled by any other country in terms of the amount and speed with which we have completely written off historic debt.

    Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes): I believe that my right hon. Friend said that South Africa was discussed at the summit over the weekend. Will he confirm that it is imperative that the G7, rather than just the United Kingdom, contributes to ensuring the economic development and regeneration of South Africa? If that country succeeds economically, the trickle-down effect across the whole continent will be of great benefit.

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that other countries also recognise the importance of South Africa. In effect, they recognise that in two ways–the importance of dealing with the internal difficulties of the new South African Government ; and, equally, the impact of a successful South Africa on the whole of southern and central Africa. I have no doubt that other countries will offer assistance. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of trade is currently in South Africa, with business men, to determine what assistance can be given.

    Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield): In his statement, the Prime Minister suggested that the G7 supported his Government’s calls for flexible labour markets. However, was it not the case that in the final communique other members of the G7 insisted specifically that the word “flexible” was not part of the final words? Is not that because they have quite a different view from Government policy on the best way to create jobs?

    The Prime Minister: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman heard that, but it did not occur in any discussion to which I was party.

    Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): Following directly from the question asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) about job creation, did not the G7–now G8–countries discuss the introduction of an information super-highway? Did not they have before them the European Commission’s White Paper on growth, competitiveness and trade? If so, were not they surprised that it is full of the British solution to introducing an information super-highway, which is competition, deregulation and privatisation?

    The Prime Minister: That White Paper was referred to in the discussions, although the super-highway was not mentioned other than in the general sense of greater liberalisation of telecommunications.

    Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): Will the Prime Minister tell the House why the G7 nations cannot bring pressure to bear on the International Monetary Fund and the World bank on the issue of accountability? Will pressure be brought to bear on the IMF and the World bank to ensure that in future developing nations will be genuinely treated as equal partners and not as beggars?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the IMF views indebted countries in that fashion. It tries to assist them and to help them out of their difficulties. That is one of its purposes. Certainly those IMF officials whom I have met would not in any way characterise the countries in the way that the hon. Lady described them. There is no doubt that there is a need for assistance for those countries. I believe that the IMF provides it. However, as we examine the future of the IMF and other institutions, we need to consider whether that can be done better in the future than it has been done in the past.

    Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South): Although the whole House welcomes the trade and aid policies being pursued by the European Union towards Gaza and Jericho, does my right hon. Friend agree that the responsibility for helping those parts of the world goes much wider than just Europe? Was any estimate made of the contribution that the oil-rich Arab states could make to the regeneration process?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches upon an important point. There is no doubt that the Arab states–many, although not all, of which are oil-rich–should make a significant contribution to the future development of Gaza. That point is relevant– [Interruption.] I hear an Opposition Member whispering that some of them have already committed.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Some of the money has gone.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman interrupts me. An Opposition Member whispered that some of the Arab states have already contributed. Others have indicated that they will do so.

    Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): Was there any discussion of the urgent need to provide continuing financial assistance to those countries most heavily affected by the imposition of United Nations sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro? The Prime Minister will surely agree that Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Macedonia deserve continuing assistance.

    The Prime Minister: There was no specific discussion of that matter, for the simple reason that the international financial institutions take that into account in the assistance that they provide at present.

    Mr. Michael Bates (Langbaurgh): Is my right hon. Friend aware that news that the considerable needs of the poorest nations of the world featured so high on the agenda of a meeting of the richest seven nations will be deeply refreshing to many people throughout the country? Will he ensure that the review of international institutions, which is long overdue in the eyes of many, will specifically examine the costs of bureaucracy and duplication so that the maximum amount of money can go to those who need it most?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. In providing further assistance to many of the poorest countries, there is a need not only for cash assistance–and I do not resile from the fact that much of that is necessary–but to do whatever can be done to ensure that the money is used for the purposes for which it was intended.

    Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East): Did I hear the Prime Minister make a fleeting reference to unemployment and employment creation? If I did, does the right hon. Gentleman accept Library statistics that show that, in Britain today, only 25 million people are in employment when the peak figure in 1990 was 26 million? We are 1 million jobs short. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that, when the G7 nations discussed that matter, they did not settle on the part-time, low-wage, poverty-making employment that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government have created? What will they do to provide real jobs at decent wages for people in G7 countries?

    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he is completely wrong. Perhaps he would like to tell me how many countries have a higher proportion of their adult population in work than does this country. There is only one in the European Union, and the hon. Gentleman would go a long way outside to find another that is better. The drivel talked by his hon. Friends can safely be ignored.

    Mr. Mike O’Brien (Warwickshire, North): Will the Prime Minister confirm that, either at the summit or in his bilateral discussions with President Clinton, he raised concerns about the fall in the US dollar and the impact that that would have on constituents such as mine who work at Jaguar who need to export to the US market?

    The Prime Minister: No. I am not going to make any comments in the House on currency values.

  • PMQT – 19 May 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th May 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

    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. Hain : Did the Prime Minister personally obtain the permission of Her Majesty the Queen to privatise the Royal Mail?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement about the Royal Mail shortly. I have no doubt that he will deal with all the matters that concern the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Batiste : My right hon. Friend will be aware of the statement by the French Government that they propose to remove a part of their forces in Bosnia by the year end if there is not more rapid progress towards a political settlement and if other countries do not provide greater assistance. What is the British Government’s response to that?

    The Prime Minister : What the French Government have said is not that they are going to withdraw all their troops from Bosnia at the end of the year but that they propose to reduce by 1,000 their troops in Croatia, and a small number of further troops–I think 1,500–from Bihac. Even when those reductions have been made, the French will still be the largest troop contributors to the former Yugoslavia. The United Kingdom Government, of course, come second. We have no intention at the moment of removing our troops, although, of course, their safety at all times is paramount.

    Mrs. Beckett : When the Post Office was not even mentioned in the Conservative party election manifesto and the effects of privatisation are causing chaos on British Rail and pushing up gas prices for ordinary families, why are the Government now looking to privatise the Post Office?

    The Prime Minister : As I said to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) a moment ago, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a full statement to the House about the Government’s proposals in just a few moments. The right hon. Lady would be well advised to wait for that statement. As to British Rail, I think that she will find that, when it is operating as a privatised concern, as with the other privatised concerns, the service will be infinitely better than it was under nationalised control.

    Mrs. Beckett : Contrary to what the Prime Minister says, the experience of most of the British public, particularly in the case of British Rail and of water, is that the end result of privatisation has been higher charges and poorer service. Do the Government never learn?

    The Prime Minister : What we see in what the right hon. Lady had to say is the same old knee-jerk opposition to private ownership. It is interesting to see that the same old centralising tendency remains among those on the Opposition Front Bench, just as it always has. What privatisation has produced is better services, profits instead of losses, tax revenue instead of taxpayers’ subsidy, and a better service for the consumer. That is because the private sector will run services better.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does the Prime Minister realise that the Post Office successfully combines running a profitable business with providing a public service that is of fundamental value to the whole community and that no one can be confident that that service will survive undamaged, especially in rural areas? Is not it another privatisation that is unnecessary, unpopular and unworkable?

    The Prime Minister : Once again, in the way that they have done so frequently, right hon. Members make conclusions before they know what is to be proposed and how matters are to be dealt with. Time and again, they have been proven wrong and, on this occasion, they will see how wrong they are very speedily.

    Mr. Congdon : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed new secure training orders for young offenders are a welcome step in protecting the public from persistent young offenders and will be welcomed by most people?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I think that they will certainly combine an effective punishment with a decent education. What those new centres will offer is the opportunity for young criminals to break away from crime and give the public a break from their offending. I am delighted that that commonsense view is now generally but not, it seems, universally held.

    Mr. Ashdown : If, as I hope and believe, the Prime Minister is serious about wishing to use this opportunity permanently to improve the quality of debate in the House, would he be prepared to open discussions and take suggestions about how we might improve these 15 minutes of Prime Minister’s Question Time–only a few weeks ago, he described as “ritual confrontation”–in order to make them more informative and more in keeping with what most people want?

    The Prime Minister : I think that many people in the country believe that these 15 minutes would be used more effectively on policy matters if questions were asked specifically about matters that must concern the people who watch our proceedings on television or read about them subsequently. I certainly wish that to be the case, but it is a matter for the House and for those who question me rather than for me. I am here to respond to the questions that are asked. [Hon. Members :– “Oh!”] The theory that this time is not always wisely used by the Opposition was most clearly illustrated just now.

    Mr. Stephen : Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of our constituents believe that the young American vandal in Singapore got exactly what he deserved? Will my right hon. Friend consider the new clause that I have tabled to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, designed to prevent that vandal, and every other criminal, profiting from his crime by selling his story to the press?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we are seeking in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to make a whole series of changes to improve crime and punishment in this country. I believe that the provisions in the Bill will be very popular across the country, and I hope that they will have the full support of the people. I regret that so many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches still seem to be more concerned for the criminal than for the people against whom the criminal perpetrates his crimes.

     

    Q2. Mr. McKelvey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

    Mr. McKelvey : Does the Prime Minister recall the helpful reply that he gave me some weeks ago when I asked a question about the passage of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Why then did he go on to direct, or at least condone, the sleekit and contemptible tactics used by a Minister to scupper the Bill? Has he no remorse for the disabled of this country? Does not he feel that he should allow the Bill to be passed so that disabled people can have basic civil rights?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the whole House shares the broad aims of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), but the reality is that the Bill, as has been shown in Committee and subsequently, is unworkable in a number of ways. It would impose immense costs and open up enormous scope for litigation. The people who understand and consider such matters carefully will appreciate that fact.

    As the hon. Gentleman will know, for I have told the House on previous occasions, we intend to press ahead with our own proposals, with consultation on a range of measures about discrimination in order to eliminate unjustified discrimination in employment, provide access to goods and services, to financial services and to buildings and to establish an advisory body on disability. That is the right way to proceed in order to produce measures that genuinely will work and will help disabled people. That is the way that we have proceeded in the past and will proceed in the future.

     

    Q3. Mr. Burns : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

    Mr. Burns : If my right hon. Friend will forgive me for changing the subject, does he agree that the unemployment figures released yesterday and the steady fall in unemployment over the past 12 months is welcome news which shows that our economic recovery is steady and sustainable? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is somewhat strange that when the news is bad about unemployment no one questions the authenticity of the figures but when the news is good and people are getting back into work some people seek bogusly to take away from that good news by questioning the authenticity of the figures?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a telling point with great clarity. The facts speak for themselves : unemployment is down by about 100,000 over the last three months and it has been down by more than 250,000 over the last year. What has been especially encouraging is that long-term unemployment has been falling as well. What is equally striking is that, while unemployment falls across the whole of the United Kingdom, it is still rising throughout much of Europe. That shows the extent to which our economy has recovered and is continuing to grow, in sharp contrast to most European economies.

     

    Q4. Mr. Win Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

    Mr. Griffiths : Has the Prime Minister had time this week to read about the seven suicides reported to have been triggered by the actions of the Child Support Agency? An ever-growing number of fathers are giving up work because they cannot afford to pay what the Child Support Agency assesses them for, yet many single mothers are worse off as a result of the agency’s activities. Will he now set aside his well-worn and repeated phrase about keeping the activities of the agency “under review” and institute immediate radical reform by bringing new legislation to the House?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we made a number of changes some time ago. It is clearly sensible to let those changes settle down and to get a little more experience of how they are working. The changes were widely welcomed and, in many cases, they reduced the amount of maintenance that absent parents were required to pay. There were a number of other changes that I think that most people would regard as the right way forward.

    The hon. Gentleman has now embarked upon the exercise of that useful quality–the wisdom of hindsight. The principle of the legislation is right. It was widely welcomed in the House. We are determined to examine what is happening and make sure that if changes are shown to be necessary, they can continue to be satisfactorily made.

    Mr. Marland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the losses in excess of £2 billion that were announced by Lloyd’s of London earlier this week bring its total losses to more than £8 billion for the past three years that accounts are available? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that that has led to the suicides of 11 of Lloyd’s investors? If it is correct, and it is correct, that there should be an official inquiry into the activities of Mr. Frederick West of 25 Cromwell street, Gloucester, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also right that there should be an official inquiry into the business practices of some professionals at Lloyd’s, which have led to the deaths of its investors?

    The Prime Minister : As I think that my hon. Friend knows, a number of civil cases relating to Lloyd’s are now before the commercial courts. It would be most unwise of me to comment on that issue while that is the case.

     

    Lockerbie

    Q5. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will have discussions with the German Government about the statements of Edwin Bollier and Ulrich Lumpert concerning the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister : The Scottish prosecuting authorities and police have worked closely with their German counterparts in the course of the Lockerbie investigation. Any discussion of evidence or information that may be relevant to the investigation would be a matter for the Crown Office and the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary to pursue with the relevant German authorities.

    Mr. Dalyell : So why has Bollier’s written request to have a sight of his timers, so that he can determine whether they were in the batch that went to Libya or the batch that went to the Stasi, been turned down?

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of the recent press reports alleging that both Bollier and Lumpert have additional information on the supply of electric timers to the East German Stasi. The Lord Advocate has taken the view that the available evidence justifies the criminal charges that have been brought against the two Libyans. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that beyond that, I cannot comment on the detail of the available evidence while the criminal investigation is still proceeding.

    Mr. Dalyell : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Spring : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 May.

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

    Mr. Spring : As we congratulate President Mandela on his recent inauguration, does my right hon. Friend agree that the best hope for South Africa’s future lies in economic growth and job creation, flowing from a free enterprise system? Does he further agree that policies such as deregulation, competition and privatisation form the best basis for economic success anywhere in the world?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. It is no surprise that the policies of deregulation, competition and privatisation are now being adopted in every part of the globe. They are certainly being imitated in central and eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. As for South Africa, I wish President Mandela every success in building the strong and stable South Africa that we all wish to see. I am sure that if he pursues those policies, they will assist.