The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Soviet Union

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet – 11 November 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, held at the Guildhall in London on Monday 11th November 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My Lord Mayor, My Late Lord Mayor, Your Grace, Lord High Chancellor, Your Excellencies, My Lords, Aldermen, Sheriffs, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    May I begin by thanking you for your toast this evening to Her Majesty’s Ministers. And My Lord Mayor, I would like if I may also to congratulate you both on your recent election and on your speech, nothing I believe could be more apt than the theme that you have chosen for your Mayoralty – serving Europe.

    You said a few moments ago that you had started in the City in 1960. I started in the City in 1959, alas my career never took off. I enjoyed your joke, My Lord Mayor, about Arthur Wood, but I hope you will forgive me if I finish it. He did get to the wicket with 770-odd runs on the board, he then scored half a century, as I recall, and returned to the pavilion when the score had advanced around 870-odd for 7. He then turned round in the dressing room to the England team and said: “Fifty-three runs, always at my best in a crisis.”

    My Lord Mayor, we owe Sir Alexander Graham a very special debt of gratitude for hosting the welcome home parade for our troops who performed so magnificently in the Gulf. It was a day I believe that the City can look back on with pride and your predecessor can look back on his whole year of office with equal pride, he has served London magnificently.

    I am delighted to make my debut on this platform with His Grace, The Archbishop of Canterbury. Our predecessors forged a long and popular double act, may we too be yolked together for many years to come. Your Grace, if you speak for God I promise to speak for Mammon, and I must say, I wonder which of us has a majority here this evening.

    My Lord Mayor, you have expressed your determination to safeguard the economic prosperity of London and of those who live and work in our great city. London is by far the largest city in Europe, its population three times that of Paris. It is a giant in the world of finance, it is Europe’s largest equity market, leader in the Eurobond market and the world’s largest foreign exchange market.

    It scores also in its variety of attractions, its theatres, its music, its galleries and museums, its historic buildings, its parks, its shops. It is the most visited city in the world, overseas visitors spent 4 billion pounds here last year.

    You spoke, My Lord Mayor, of transport. In the last few years the government has approved plans for eight new rail and tube links for London – the East-West crossrail, a new line for Heathrow, the Jubilee Line extended to Docklands, and in addition we have chosen a route for the Channel Tunnel rail link which approaches London from the East, and that I believe is where so much of London’s future development will lie.

    Tonight I can announce one further step. Less than three miles from here a third London city is rapidly emerging in Docklands, its success depends upon good transport, the immediate key to this is the Docklands Light Railway. The best way to put the DLR into the hands of a body with a single clear objective – that is the way forward, that is the way to make a success of Docklands – and we have decided therefore with that in mind to transfer responsibility for the DLR to the London Docklands Development Corporation. And I am delighted to tell you this evening that one of your Aldermen, Sir Peter Levine, has agreed to take over as DLR’s Chairman in addition to his other responsibilities.

    And this transfer has another advantage, it will enable London Transport to concentrate on its massive investment programme, now totalling 3.5 billion pounds over the next three years. My Lord Mayor, we are determined that London shall have a transport structure which meets its needs and marks its status as the world’s finest city.

    Just a few days ago the Chancellor delivered the traditional Mansion House address on the economy. Many of you were in this room to hear it then so I will be brief this evening in case I say too many of the same things or perhaps, even worse, say something different.
    In the Autumn Statement the Chancellor set out our spending plans for the next three years. He was able to announce some carefully targeted expenditure on priority areas, such as transport and health, as well as the necessary increases in programmes which tend to arise at this stage of the economic cycle.

    At the same time he was also able to demonstrate that prudence in fiscal affairs which has been the hallmark of this government and that has earned us over the years the support of the financial markets.

    As a proportion of national income, public expenditure will still be sharply lower, some 5 percentage points lower, than it was in the early 1980s at a similar stage in the economic cycle. And I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever, that with steady growth in the years ahead we will see that proportion decline further. While sticking to our policy of balancing the budget over a run of years, we will be able once again to cut direct taxation.

    Ask any businessman what he really needs from government. I think I know what he will say: certainty, low inflation and a stable currency.
    Against that background I have no doubt about the most important economic development of the last year – our historic decision to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism. The City had long supported our membership, events I believe have amply justified our membership. Our inflation rate has been more than halved, at 4 percent it is now below the European Community average. Interest rates have been cut eight times while sterling has remained stable. Our trade has flourished with record exports to the Community and a much reduced deficit with the rest of Europe and the world. For the third year running our share of world trade expanded.

    The speed and the scale of these achievements are rightly recognised. But I often wonder whether their economic and social significance has yet been grasped. For the first time in 50 years, we are now in a position to achieve on a lasting basis that greater certainty that businessmen want. That is a great prize, it has been hard won and it must not be thrown away.

    The opportunities in the 1990s will be unprecedented, so will the competition, not least from Eastern Europe, the Pacific Rim and even South America. Those who backslide on inflation will lose orders and lose markets, their growth rate will falter, there will be fewer jobs. The competitive atmosphere will be unforgiving and the lesson to be drawn from that is unmissable.

    I make no apologies for our crusade to get inflation down and keep it down. The 1990s present us with a simple, stark challenge, to create the jobs we need and the just society we want we must keep inflation down permanently, there is no other way.

    My Lord Mayor, in the last few months we have witnessed one of the most dramatic revolutions of this century, the Soviet Union has shaken off 70 years of tyranny. In September, when I went to Moscow, there was a tremendous sense of euphoria, a feeling that oppression had had its last desperate throw. There was real belief that democracy would now take root.

    Since then, I have received a succession of leaders from the Soviet Union and the republics at 10 Downing Street. I am told that there are 120 languages in the Soviet Union but these visitors spoke a language that was unknown there a few years ago, the language of democracy and free markets. They are wrestling with the strong forces of nationalism on the one hand and the need for a continuing central structure on the other, the need for a single army, central control over nuclear weapons, a single market, a coordinated foreign policy.

    There is no easy transition from tyranny to freedom or from an inefficient command economy to a free market. The people of the Soviet Union have chosen democracy but it is not yet stable democracy. Whether the Soviet Union survives as a recognisable entity or breaks up into individual republics must be a matter of negotiation, not coercion. The situation is volatile. The August coup failed because the Free World refused to accept what had happened and because the Russian people refused to be cowed but a number of leading representatives from Russia and other republics have expressed to me their fears for the future, fears of a renewed attempt to overthrow legitimate government if lack of food, lack of goods, old rivalries and lack of political leadership overwhelm that euphoria that followed the August events.

    We cannot dictate what happens in the Soviet Union. We can and we must help create the conditions in which stable democracy has a chance to succeed. That is why with our G7 and European Community partners we have launched a $10 billion lifeline of food and medicines to be drawn on this winter as necessary; that is why the special association status of the Soviet Union with the IMF agreed in principle at the London Economic Summit here in London in the summer has now been made a reality; and that is why the G7 countries and the IMF are urging the Soviet authorities and the republics to move decisively towards economic reform. If they fail to do so, all our plans to help them will be undermined.

    The Soviet Union is looking for help with its foreign debt. For their part, the republics must assume their responsibility for servicing that debt; this and the pursuit of reform are essential for future credits and for the continuing support of the international community. The republics must honour too those international agreements signed by the Soviet Union, especially treaties on arms control and proliferation and they must exercise restraint in developing their own military forces – that too will be a condition of our future assistance.

    The events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe pose perhaps the greatest challenge to the West since World War II. The republics of what was the Soviet Union have a chance to join the Western family of democracies but there is a risk, a risk that they could fall into a dark abyss of political conflict and economic hardship. If we are to avoid the tragedy of Yugoslavia on a larger and more dangerous scale, we have to adapt the political structures of the West to accommodate the new democracies of the East. The changes that we have made in NATO, the development of the CSCE have both helped but it is the European Community which offers them the best prospects for political and economic stability.

    It is right for the European Community not to neglect its own development but it would be foolish to be so preoccupied with internal development that it became an end in itself. We have to hold out to the countries of Eastern Europe and perhaps to some of the new republics in the Soviet Union as well the prospect of closer association with the Community and in due course membership of the Community.

    My Lord Mayor, the shape of the Community they join is being set now in the negotiations under way in Europe. Those negotiations are important for the Community but no more important than the Community’s obligations to the rest of Europe. We will never create a genuine European union if we exclude those countries that most want to join, countries which for the first time since World War II are free democracies. It would be unforgivable if when they are ready to join we made it impossible for them to do so [applause] and it would be tragic if twenty years from now there was an economic iron curtain across Europe, an iron curtain forged by the wealthy member states to keep out our democratic neighbours to the East.

    The influence of the European Community has never been greater. Some see that as a threat but truly it is an opportunity. Its attraction was shown in the recent negotiations with the EFTA countries. They were prepared to accept the rules of the Community, which they had no part in drawing up, in order to attain the prize of access to the Single Market. To maintain its influence, the Community must continue to look outwards and be a liberalising force in world trade.

    In the GATT talks, we have a unique opportunity to create a free and open trading structure that will last well into the next century. Our future prosperity depends upon the success of this effort. The completion of the Single Market would be undermined if we had meanwhile unleashed a world trade war of unprecedented proportions. Success in the GATT talks, too, is crucial for the world’s poorest countries. There is something immoral in the fact that they lose more from the distorting effects of subsidies than they gain from aid from the West. If you give a man a fish, you give him food for a day; if you teach him how to fish, you give him food for a lifetime; but if you teach a man how to fish and then stop him selling his catch, you create injustice, hardship and resentment and we should not do that. There is as much at stake in the GATT talks as there is at Maastricht.

    My Lord Mayor, the European Council at Maastricht is only a month away; the issues are momentous. We have an opportunity to take decisions which will carry the Community on a sound basis into the next century. Yesterday in Bonn, I discussed these matters with Chancellor Kohl. We are both aware of the opportunities and the risks that lie ahead, of the responsibility to take decisions which will enable the Community to give a lead to the whole of our continent as it emerges into democracy, decisions which underpin the vital relationship with the United States, decisions which avoid narrow nationalism but which safeguard the best traditions of our national life.

    Good progress has been made in the negotiation of the treaty on economic and monetary union. There is some way to go but I hope it will be possible to reach an agreement. There has been increasing recognition by our partners of the point we have consistently made, that to move to a single currency without the convergence of national economies would be an economic catastrophe. That is why we are negotiating a treaty which would permit economic and monetary union only when strict economic conditions on convergence are met and that treaty must also allow the British Government and the British Parliament to take the decision on whether to join such a single currency when the option is a realistic one. Only then can a balanced judgement be made.

    When that moment comes, we shall need to weigh carefully the issues of sovereignty and accountability raised by a single currency against the potential impact on our influence and prosperity were we to take a different decision from our principal competitors. It would be wrong to decide now to join a single currency but it would be equally wrong to decide now that in no circumstances will we ever do so.

    We still face huge problems in working for an agreement on political union. No-one should assume that simply for the sake of agreement we could accept some of the propositions now before us – we couldn’t.

    Much of the debate centres on defence and foreign policy. I welcome the idea of Europe doing more for its own defence – it should – but we have to remember that we are not writing a new policy on a blank sheet of paper. There are existing organisations, NATO and the Western European Union, which have successfully provided for our defence for over forty years. It makes sense to take our existing defence structures and enhance them with increased European cooperation. I can agree to that. I could not agree to undermine them with a new competing and therefore damaging European defence structure. The same message came through loud and clear from others at the NATO Summit last week.

    In foreign policy, we have increasingly developed the habit of cooperation and common action among the Twelve – it has worked well. Common action cannot work miracles but it magnifies our influence. Consensus is a strength and not a weakness. It would be a serious mistake to replace that habit of consensus on common action by majority voting – we might take more decisions but we would wield less influence – nor is it conceivable that we would give up our right as a nation to take vital foreign policy decisions. [Applause].

    But there are areas such as the environment, which transcends national frontiers, where it may make sense to extend the competence of the European Community but we should not be afraid to say “No” to the general clamour for wide-ranging extensions of Community competence.

    I am thinking especially of the social area. Under existing Community rules, we are already faced with unnecessary intrusive and costly proposals. The proposed Working Time Directive would cost British employers 5 billion pounds in the first year. That proposal is more than unnecessary – it is damaging. It would blunt our competitive edge. It would not be European workers who would benefit but those in the United States and Japan. It is not in the interests of Europe and we cannot allow the Community to extend its power to burden business with unnecessary proposals. [Applause].

    The principles that must apply are those of subsidiarity and accountability. The Community should not interpose itself in areas best dealt with at national level. The Commission is unelected; it must be made more answerable to elected members of the European Parliament. [Applause].

    My Lord Mayor, our partners know there are certain principles that are vital for us in these negotiations. They equally know that the British Government will go on working over the next crucial weeks for an agreement at the European Council in Maastricht.

    Maastricht will be an important stage on the road to ever closer union among the peoples of Europe. I believe that the basis for an agreement can be found but it has to be an agreement which all twelve member states accept – that will require give and take on all sides. We have to find an agreement which will command the support of twelve national parliaments and which all member states not only support in theory but will actually implement in practice. An agreement of that kind is in our interests. It is in the Community’s interests. It would be the best outcome in these negotiations for our own country and for the Europe we hope to build together. [Applause].

  • Text of the NATO Agreement – Developments in the Soviet Union – 8 November 1991

    Below is the text of the NATO Agreement on Developments in the Soviet Union, issued on 8th November 1991.

    DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SOVIET UNION

    1 – We, the Heads of State and Government of the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, warmly welcome the historic events that are fundamentally transforming the Soviet Union as we have known it and the relationships among the republics. By their resolute and courageous stand against the illegal coup of 19th August, the men and women of the Soviet union have affirmed their determination to build a new future based upon democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and economic liberty. The nations of the Atlantic Alliance pledge themselves to assist in this great endeavour. We are prepared to build our relationships with the Soviet Union and the republics on the basis of the following fundamental principles that have guided our own policies and practices for decades.

    2 – It is for the peoples of the Soviet Union to decide their future relationship through peaceful and democratic means. At the same time, we encourage them to progress towards a common ground of cooperation, both among themselves and with us. In this process, there is no place for threats, intimidation, coercion or violence. Authorities at all levels should respect international norms and international obligations, especially those embodied in the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, and other CSCE documents. Consistent with these commitments, government must be based on democracy through free and fair elections, and on the rule of law. Inalienable human rights must be guaranteed, including full respect for the individual and protection of the rights of persons belonging to minorities.

    3 – In a period of dramatic political change, it is important also to the development of our relations that leaders of the Soviet Union and the republics implement policies that contribute to international peace and security. in this respect, it is critical that the Soviet Union and the republics take all necessary actions to ensure that international agreements signed by the USSR, especially the START Treaty, the CFE Treaty, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Biological Weapons Convention are respected, ratified, and implemented. We call upon all authorities to refrain from any steps that could lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons or other means of mass destruction. We therefore welcome the intention of the Soviet leadership to ensure the safe, responsible and reliable control of these weapons under a single authority. This matter affects the security interests of the entire Atlantic Alliance, as well as those of the international community as a whole. The Soviet and republic governments should adopt firm measures to prevent the export of nuclear or other potentially destabilising military technologies. We urge restraint in the development of conventional military forces that by their size and character could exacerbate political tensions, retard market economic reform, and contradict efforts toward lower and more stable levels of forces as embodied in the CFE Treaty. Because it reduces the dangers of instability and enhances openness, the CFE Treaty is in everyone’s interest, including those of the Soviet union and the republics.

    4 – The Allies are firmly convinced that political change should be accompanied by economic liberty and the building of market economies. We support the development of economic policies that promote trade and economic cooperation among republics in the interest of growth and stability. In this context, it is essential that all the republics assume their appropriate responsibilities vis-à-vis Soviet international obligations, which would facilitate integration of the Union and the republics. into the world economy. Newly established links with the international financial institutions should facilitate rapid reform towards the development of a market economy as the basis for economic recovery and prosperity for the Union and the republics. The Allies stand ready to assist in this historic undertaking, including through technical assistance in key sectors. In addition, we are providing humanitarian support to the Soviet peoples as they cope with the political and economic crises that confront them. We consider such assistance a vital contribution to the future security of Europe and of the world as a whole.

    5 – We hope that leaders and authorities at all levels throughout the Union and the republics will demonstrate their commitment to the values and principles we have reaffirmed in this statement.

    6 – The North Atlantic Council will continue to consult actively on developments in the Soviet Union, with a view to harmonising our approach towards unfolding events.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Rome – 8 November 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s press conference, held in Rome on Friday 8th November 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think in the last couple of days we have seen a very successful conference indeed, we have seen one that has successfully completed the work that was set in hand in London just over a year ago and there are a number of points to which I would particularly like to draw your attention.

    We have agreed the reorganisation of our forces which will now be more flexible and more mobile. And there has been complete agreement amongst the allies that we will need to maintain effective nuclear as well as conventional forces, but of course at lower levels than previously. For example, our theatre nuclear weapons will be cut by around 80 percent.

    We have also been able to endorse the role of the Alliance’s new reaction forces and again I suspect you were aware that Britain will command the new rapid reaction corps.

    We have also reaffirmed NATO’s position as the essential forum for consultation among the allies and the forum for agreement on policy bearing on the security and defence commitments of all its members, and we regard that as very important.

    The Alliance has always been an organisation designed to defend the peace but its role is changing, Now we are increasingly seeing an Alliance that is promoting the peace as well. As you will have seen from the declaration, we have agreed to set up a North Atlantic Cooperation Council to conduct a continuing dialogue with the countries of Eastern Europe and at Britain’s suggestion its first meeting will be at Foreign Minister level in December and I think it has now been agreed that that will be in Brussels.

    That is a remarkable achievement. Two years ago many of the countries of Eastern Europe were calling for both the Warsaw Pact and for NATO to be dismantled. The Warsaw Pact has now disappeared but the countries of Eastern Europe have come to see the valuable role NATO can play in seeking to underpin their democracy.

    But I think the important point is this. We are not just talking to each other, it will go a good deal further than that. We shall be offering education and training, advice on the conversion of defence industries and encouragement to Eastern European countries to join with us in the West in halting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

    We have also had an interesting discussion of events in the Soviet Union. l think it is self-evident to everyone in this room that the Soviet Union is changing very rapidly and very unpredictably as well. The problem of food shortages this winter is one we are well aware of. We discussed that collectively and I discussed it bilaterally with President Bush yesterday as well. I have also been in touch with the President of the European Commission over the last two days.

    Within the G7 countries we have been coordinating an international effort to provide food aid, effectively targeted to the areas that we believe will most need it. There is an urgent need to get food aid on its way. Within the European Community we have already agreed aid worth nearly 2.5 billion dollars. But the problems of the Soviet Union of, course go a good deal wider than simply food aid and we have to try and help them to achieve democracy with stability, that is we believe what they are seeking for themselves and to the extent that we can help with that we believe that we should.

    Economically, our ability to help the republics of the Soviet Union must depend on their willingness to shoulder their share of the burden of Soviet debt and politically we must encourage them to ratify and apply the main arms control treaties agreed by the former Soviet Union.

    The Soviet Union must also stop wasting its scarce resources on vast military programmes inherited from the past and far beyond its present needs. It makes no sense economically and would be very dangerous politically for the republics to seek to build up their own forces. These issues will be one of our central preoccupations over the immediate months ahead.

    The Alliance’s new strategic concept and the declaration reflect the view expressed by all of us that Europe should be doing more for its own defence and both the texts also reflect agreement that we should not be talking about transatlantic defence and European defence as though they were alternatives. Defence activities within the framework of political union will to doubt develop over time but it must be compatible with what we are doing in NATO.

    And there are three important principles in the declaration and in the strategic concept to which I would particularly draw your attention. Firstly, NATO should remain the forum for decisions on matters involving the defence of the Alliance. Secondly, as we create new European capabilities there should be no duplication of NATO’s military structures for the defence of western Europe, that is what is meant by the reference to operational coherence and strategic unity in the documents published today. And thirdly, the Western European Union should be reinforced as a means of strengthening the European pillar of the Alliance and we should make sure that all allies are properly involved in decisions that may involve their security.

    That reflects our view that the Western European Union, although politically very close to the Union and its foreign and security policy, should remain autonomous, subordinate neither to the union nor to NATO.

    The Foreign Ministers also met this morning to discuss Yugoslavia and on that occasion they heard a fairly sombre report from Lord Carrington. On the political front the Serbians remain unwilling to make good use of Lord Carrington’s peace conference and the proposals that we have made. On the military front there is now new and serious fighting, this time in Zagreb itself.

    Our judgment is that the outside world must now find new ways of bringing the leaders and the forces to their senses. For that reason the European Community has decided today to dismantle its links with Yugoslavia. We shall in particular suspend the trade and cooperation agreement which will have a serious effect on Yugoslav exports to the Community. And these are new measures, not old measures revisited.

    The three Community members of the Security Council have agreed they will press at the United Nations for an oil embargo, it would bear more heavily on the Serbs and the Yugoslav National Army, the largely Serbian Yugoslav Army. We shall also look for positive measures to alleviate the effect of sanctions on those parties which cooperate with, the peace efforts.

    Lord Carrington in the future will of course continue his efforts, but the peace conference needs clear signs that all the parties to the peace conference are ready to work seriously for peace if that conference is to proceed.

    That was the substance of the agreement amongst the Foreign Ministers this morning and that was endorsed subsequently by the Heads of Government.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Nik Gowing, Channel 4 News):

    Prime Minister, what kind of benchmark on defence issues has been created by the text reference to the WEU in advance of your discussions before Maastricht?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There was complete agreement about the essential primacy of NATO at the discussions, that we have had over the last 2 days, there was no dissent on that point from anyone at all, neither was there any suggestions from any part of the conference that there should be any other command structure or operational structure other than that which exists through the Western European Union and through NATO. There is a general agreement that the Western European Union should be built up as the European arm of NATO, that is entirely acceptable. That is what was agreed and nothing further was agreed, there was no suggestion of subordination of the Western European Union to the European Community.

    QUESTION (Jim Hoglan, Washington Post):

    You have just said that there is an urgent need to get food aid on its way to the Soviet Union, can you tell us whether the delay in doing that, the remaining obstacle in doing that, has to do with the inability of the Western powers to organise that aid or the problems of knowing who to give it to in the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The primary concern is knowing precisely where the food aid is going to have to go and determining how to get it there. The Community has agreed something over 2.25 billion pounds worth of food aid, there has been an offer from other sources as well. There is a need to coordinate that, it would be rather silly of the Western powers collectively to deliver the wrong sort of aid at the wrong time to the wrong place in the Soviet Union. So there is a need for a good deal of coordination and that coordination is at present in hand, how rapidly it will be concluded I cannot say, but I would certainly hope that we would be able to make those facilities available to the Soviets well before Christmas.

    QUESTION (Graham Leech, BBC):

    Following Nik Gowing’s question, the declaration does refer to the reinforcement of the role of the WEU as the defence component which would suggest a leaning towards the Franco-German ideas rather than the Anglo-Italian ideas?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With respect, I think it suggests precisely the opposite. The idea of building up the Western European Union is one that arouses no difficulty amongst any of the European partners in the Alliance, there is agreement that it is right for Europe to bear a proportionately larger share of the transatlantic NATO burden – that is generally agreed.

    The point at issue really is what the nature of the Western European Union subsequently will be and what its links will be both with NATO and with the European Community. There has been no suggestion in the discussions that we have had over the past two days, and nothing in the declarations, to suggest that the independence of the European Community and of NATO should change insofar as the western European Union is concerned and we believe on the basis of that that it is a helpful text.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It means that Europe is going to build up its own share of the Alliance through the Western European Union, but the Western European Union remains wholly a part of NATO and will be operational within NATO.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    If there is general agreement on the primacy of NATO why didn’t the Alliance take the opportunity to affirm it in so many words and what prospect do you see for NATO operating as an out of area military policeman?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no question that NATO is the prime method of our defence, it is a matter which is accepted without any need for it actually to be stated. I think one exchange during the meeting is perhaps more illustrative than the text. President Bush said at one stage during the meeting: “if it is actually the wish of the Europeans that the Americans should not continue as at present they have and that NATO ought not to continue as it has, then perhaps they should say so.” The Europeans responded to that by saying precisely the reverse, there is a very strong support for NATO operating as it does now and that was not Contradicted by anyone in the conference we have had over the past two days.

    QUESTION (Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph):

    Chancellor Kohl is said to have invited or be about to invite the Presidents of Slovenia and Croatia to Bonn very shortly to discuss the conditions for German recognition of their two republics and Prime Minister Martens of Belgium has said that he doesn’t think Germany will wait much more than beyond the end of this month before recognising them on its own. Is that something you would welcome and what will you be saying to Chancellor Kohl when you meet him in the course of the next few days?

    My other question is about this WEU business. How far could you accept orders, mandates, suggestions being passed down from the European Council to the WEU? If it is not going to be subordinate, what relationship will it have with the EC?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Western European Union is not technically part of NATO – I think I should make that clear – but it will serve to strengthen the Alliance. We do see an organic link, a relationship, between the Western European Union and NATO and the European Community. There is very substantial common membership in it but we do not see it as being subordinate to the European Council and taking orders from the European Council or having its own policies agreed collectively within the European Council and Britain will not accept that. That is not a matter of dispute. We will not accept that and no-one has argued for that over the past two days.

    On the earlier point about Croatia, I am not going to comment on what Chancellor Kohl may or may not do at some stage in the future. I will no doubt have the opportunity of discussing this and other matters with him when I see him on Sunday and I am looking forward to that but I think that recognition is a little way down the road.

    The Foreign Secretary was involved in the discussions this morning; he may want to add something.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    We discussed the extent to which we should continue to act together in this matter and everybody agreed we must so I don’t think there is any question of individual EC member states acting on recognition by themselves. If you look at the Declaration that we put out it said in this respect they recall that the prospect of recognition of the independence of those republics wishing it can only be envisaged in the framework of an overall settlement that includes adequate guarantees for the protection of human rights and the rights of national or ethnic groups, i.e. there is a good deal of work still to be done.

    QUESTION (David Osborne, The Independent):

    To return to the European Defence Identity and the WEU, just as you are doing so here, President Mitterrand a few minutes ago expressed his complete satisfaction with the text and said he could ask for no more. Has anything happened here that makes you more confident that the differences between yourselves and the French in particular on this can be settled in time for Maastricht so that the defence question will not be an obstacle at Maastricht.

    On the Declaration of the Soviet Union, President Mitterrand said that he voted against it because he felt that parts of it made NATO look as if it were a preaching monk to the Soviet Union. Perhaps you could comment on his dissension on that point?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sorry the French were isolated on that point but that is a matter for President Mitterrand, not me.

    On the earlier question of the Western European Union and NATO, I am encouraged by the discussion over the past couple of days and encouraged particularly because of the huge common ground there was about the role of NATO, the central and prime importance of NATO – that was not, I repeat again, questioned by anybody; it was endorsed by everybody and on the basis of that, it seems to me unlikely that anybody is going to take action that would seek to undermine NATO’s position either in the short or the medium term so I think the whole of the discussion that we have had over the past few days has been very encouraging about the future of NATO, people’s allegiance to NATO and the prospect of the Western Europeans building up the Western European Union as the European pillar of the NATO Alliance.

    QUESTION (Hella Pick, The Guardian):

    If I could follow up on what you have just been saying – indeed everybody else – what a wonderful achievement NATO is able to record here, if you put this in the context of the Soviet crisis, do you think that NATO or indeed anyone in the West is really able to respond to the challenge that is coming from here and in particular, how do you envisage crisis management and the maintenance of peace and stability that has been outlined in these Declarations?

    In your capacity as Chairman of the G7, do you intend to offer any more substantial aid now to the Soviet Union beyond the emergency food aid which you have mentioned? On the position of the G7, do you feel able to proceed with any massive injection of capital and other forms of aid to the Soviet Union for economic restructuring or do you think all this is now being halted by their inability to meet their present debt obligations and the uncertainties in the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The latter points are under continuing discussion with G7 Deputies and elsewhere but when we are quite clear what the situation is, we will be able to make a decision. I am afraid if you have in mind help in the nature of balance of payments help or debt help, which I suspect you did have, I think substantial decisions on that are still some way away.

    On food aid, there is no doubt in principle about our willingness to assist and I set out earlier the fact that I believe we will need to have some of that aid in place this side of Christmas and it may be that what we would have in place would be the stand-by credits rather than the physical delivery of food but there is a great deal of information that we still need before we can be entirely clear what is required and where.

    As to the future role of NATO and whether it can play a role, I think there are several things that suggest that it can and there are helpful signs. One of them, of course, is the extent to which the Eastern European states now support the retention of NATO, are very keen to have a relationship with NATO and the discussions that will take place in the newly-formed Cooperation Council. They will begin, as I indicated earlier, at Foreign Minister level. Quite how they will continue after that is not entirely clear but I suspect they will continue at ambassadorial level; that is the most likely outcome and it does mean that we will have a continuing relationship with the Eastern European nations and will be able to deal with matters on a regular basis and hopefully iron out difficulties before they become international sores. That is the intention so the role of NATO is changing to the extent that it is seeking to promote peace rather than simply defend ourselves if our own security is threatened.

    QUESTION (Mark Laity, BBC):

    Relating to that, do you see the Cooperation Council ever ultimately leading to some form of associate membership, security guarantee or full membership for nations and relating to that, yesterday you were quite in favour of an expanded out-of-area role for NATO and a proposal which was included in the communique at one point is not there so was there a problem over getting any out-of-area commitment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the subject of associate membership, I think it is a little early to say. I certainly would not rule that out in the long term but I think it is self-evident there are a clear number of difficulties with that in the short term and I don’t envisage that as being a short-term option but I certainly think the developing relationship is attractive, is necessary and will prove effective.

    On the out-of-area role, I was casting my mind forward to future roles for NATO; it wasn’t a matter that was under substantive discussion this weekend so it was neither agreed nor disagreed.

    QUESTION (Robert Morton, Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, on the WEU you said that Britain doesn’t see this organisation as being subordinate to the European Community institutions nor taking orders from them. At the same, you said there will be some link with the European Community. What sort of link are you thinking of exactly?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When I said it wasn’t subordinate, I was referring of course particularly to some of the aspects in the Franco-German text some time ago which held out the prospect that the Western European Union would be subordinate to the European Council. That is not acceptable to us and we have made that clear but there are going to be, I trust, what are called “organic links”. The European Council can give guidelines, it can set out what it thinks and it has a very substantial common membership with the Western European Union but operationally the Western European Union cannot be subordinate to the European Council – that is the core point of substance upon which we feel most strongly.

    QUESTION (Peter Jenkins, The Independent):

    Following up what you said a moment ago, would you agree that the enlargement of NATO to the East is now effectively on the long-term agenda and if not, could you state precisely what the short-term difficulties that you mentioned a moment ago – associate membership and so on – precisely what they are?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just take the question in the larger sense first:

    I have argued in the past for the desirability of the European Community itself also making it clear that when Eastern European countries are economically ready we should admit them into the European Community. The structure of Europe is changing. It follows, I think inexorably as night follows day, that if I think it is proper in the medium-term for the Eastern European nations to join the European Community, I would not object to the Eastern European nations also joining in the defence establishment for the security of the West – NATO – but I think it is some time away.

    The sensitivity, of course, that exists at the moment is that if NATO were to readily accept entry into NATO of some of the Eastern European countries, I think that might well have an unsettling effect on other Eastern European nations, not least the Soviet republics, and I don’t think that is wise at the moment but I do think we should have this ongoing dialogue and as the years unfold no doubt other opportunities will present themselves.

    QUESTION (Ian Davidson, Financial Times):

    At the London NATO Summit, the Declaration referred to nuclear weapons which were described as “weapons of last resort”. In the new Strategic Concept, those words do not appear. Could you tell me whether there was any discussion in particular of the nature and role of nuclear weapons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, there was not. The concept of the use of nuclear weapons I think remains as it was before except that of course the volume – the quantity – of nuclear weapons has been substantially reduced in Europe by around 80 percent but it was not a matter of substantial discussion over the last few days.

    QUESTION (Michael Evans, The Times):

    Just wrapping up the WEU thing, apart from the point that you have already made very clearly about the WEU and its subordination or non-subordination, can you think or two or three other precise points which you will be making on this particular issue at Maastricht from which you will need satisfaction from the Germans, the French and others?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I can but if you mean am I going to outline them now, I am afraid no, I am not. I am in the midst of a round of discussions on European matters with our European colleagues. Over the period that I have been here, I have had discussions with Prime Minister Lubbers and a number of other European colleagues, Prime Minister Schluter I have met also, the Prime Minister da Silva of Portugal I have met and Prime Minister Adreotti of Italy, I am going to see Chancellor Kohl on Sunday, I will be seeing President Mitterrand, I have further meetings with other European leaders between now and Maastricht, so there is a great deal of bilateral discussion to be had upon the particular point that you raised and I think it has to be said upon one or two other points as well but I don’t want to elaborate on it now.

    QUESTION (John Craig, Today):

    You have been a bit dismissive this morning about Labour’s victory in Langbaurgh. The fact is they won and you lost. You have not won a by-election I think since Richmond and you were absolutely trounced by the Liberal Democrats up on Scotland. These are rather bad results for you, aren’t they?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did lose at Langbaurgh with a swing of 3.5 percent against us; we did lose at Hemsworth with a swing of 3 percent against us, both to Labour. The fact of the matter is that Labour need a 5.5 percent swing to win a general election from the Conservatives to Labour and in a by-election, after twelve years of government at the end of a recession with all the by-election factors that traditionally arise, they only managed to get about one-half of that swing. I think if I were a Labour Member of Parliament I would of course celebrate the two victories that they have had and I would enjoy that celebration because casting the trend of those victories forward, I would not expect as a Labour Member to win a general election on those figures and indeed they would not, so for that reason I think that although I regret the fact that we lost Langbaurgh, it was an astonishingly good result in many ways.

    The Conservative vote held up, the swing against the Conservatives in a by-election was remarkably low, not just in the history of the last couple of years of by-elections but if you go back through the history of the last fifteen or twenty years of by-elections you will find very few by-elections where the swing against the governing party in a Tory/Labour or indeed Labour/Tory marginal has been so small.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    I just wondered if we could ask you a question about the Scottish dimension because you yourself have devoted a lot of energy since you became Prime Minister to Scotland and yet the Tories now I think are level pegging as far as representation goes with the Liberals. Does this really make it conceivable that a Conservative Government, if you win the-next election, could go on governing Scotland where you don’t really have a mandate at all?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are jumping a long way ahead from a by-election to a general election. It is not all that long ago in this Parliament that the Liberals were getting swings from the Conservatives in by-elections as protests of something over 20 percent. This was half that and in many ways it is a rather unusual and odd by-election. There is certainly said to be a great deal of protest about the decision on Scottish regiments but I think it is a protest vote for this reason: because the Liberal Party’s policies would be to halve defence expenditure; that would be bound to affect Scottish regiments, indeed it is arguable that there might not be any Scottish regiments left, so I think it must be seen as a by-election protest vote.

    We are just coming out of recession, there were local issues in that particular by-election and that, I believe, is acknowledged not just by us but by everybody else who visited the by-election or knows anything about it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 October 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st October 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Official Visits

    Mr. Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visits to the Soviet Union, China and Hong Kong.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    During my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow on 1 September, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, he had meetings with President Gorbachev, President Yeltsin and members of the committee for the management of the national economy. It was the first visit to the Soviet Union by a foreign Head of Government following the failed coup on 19 August. The Prime Minister expressed our strong support for the continuing process of economic and political reform in the Soviet Union and discussed ways in which we and our partners could assist. The Prime Minister also had a first meeting with the Prime Ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania following their independence, and agreed with them on the desirability of developing close and friendly relations.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Peking from 2 to 4 September and met Premier Li Peng, President Yang Shangkun and party secretary Jiang Zemin. The central element in the Prime Minister’s visit was the signature of the memorandum of understanding on the Hong Kong airport project. The Prime Minister also raised human rights and discussed international and bilateral issues. We reached agreement on a number of issues related to Hong Kong which we set out in the joint communique of 4 September, a copy of which is being placed in the Library.

    In Hong Kong my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had meetings with the Governor and members of the Executive Council and met a wide cross-section of leaders and representatives from the political, municipal and business communities. He also visited the city polytechnic using the mass transit railway–a British export success. The Prime Minister made clear in Hong Kong the Government’s commitment to the continued success of Hong Kong, and to the maintenance of effective British administration until 1 July 1997. There was widespread satisfaction that the vital airport project is now going ahead.

     

    Switzerland (Military Agreements)

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Swiss organisations with which Her Majesty’s Government have made any agreement since 1979 to provide military training in combat, communications and sabotage.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    Military training has been provided to personnel of the Swiss armed forces, but it is not our practice to comment on the details of such training.

     

    Downing Street Office

    Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister what is the latest annual figure for the cost of running the Private Office at 10 Downing Street; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The total cost of all my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s offices in 1990-91 was £8,225,816

    Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs, the costs of office services and the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust are included. The Prime Minister’s salary is excluded.

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to return to the Tate gallery, London, the Turner paintings “A Quiet Ruin” and “Sunset”, which are currently on loan to his office in No. 10 Downing Street.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    There is no set loan period; the paintings will be returned to the Tate gallery when the trustees so request.

     

    Hospitality Costs

    Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister what is the latest annual figure for the cost of hospitality provided by 10 Downing Street; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The cost of official hospitality met by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s office during 1990-91 was £20,904.

     

    Foreign Visits

    Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister what is the most recent figure for the cost of foreign visits made by the Prime Minister since 22 November 1990; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply. The cost of foreign visits made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister since 22 November 1990 is £550,219, including costs of his staff, but excluding outstanding costs of a number of recent visits.

     

    Zimbabwe

    Sir Eldon Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if, during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare, he raised with the Zimbabwe Government the situation of British retirees who worked there as civil servants and/or police officers, and whose occupational pensions, payable by Zimbabwe, have lost much of their value; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    No. I understand that the Zimbabwe Government are meeting their legal obligations on the payment of pensions to their former public servants.

     

    City Challenge

    Mr. Blunkett : To ask the Prime Minister what Government Departments have agreed to participate in the city challenge initiative; and what steps he has taken to ensure that their departments give a priority to participating in city challenge.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply. All Government Departments with relevant responsibilities are participating in city challenge. They are assessing their contribution to the initiative as the 11 city challenge authorities work up their proposals in detail.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy on Yugoslavia.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 14 October at column 40.

     

    Energy Conservation

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if his Department has carried out an energy audit of the properties at 10 Downing Street and the Chequers estate within the last year;

    (2) what measures have been taken over the last year to improve energy conservation at 10 Downing street and the Chequers estate.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    An energy audit of 10 to 12 Downing Street was carried out in late 1990. The implementation of all the audit’s recommendations will be completed by the end of the year. The Chequers estate is the responsibility of the Chequers Trust.

     

    Ozone Layer

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister what is his latest information in regard to the policy of the Indian Government towards signing the Montreal protocol to protect the global ozone layer.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My understanding is that the Indian Government intend to become a party to the Montreal protocol once there are sufficient ratifications to bring into force the amendments agreed at the second meeting of the parties in London last year. It is hoped that we will reach that position by the end of this year.

     

    UK Nuclear Deterrent

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the basis for his calculation of the minimum size of the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    We maintain our nuclear deterrent at the minimum size necessary to ensure that any potential aggressor is faced by the prospect of intolerable damage if he proceeds.

     

    Kuwait

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what matters were discussed in his meeting with Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah of Kuwait in London on 4 October; and what matters were agreed.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s discussions with the amir covered a number of international and bilateral issues and underlined the strength of our relationship. The Prime Minister welcomed the political changes now under way in Kuwait and stressed the importance of fair and humane treatment of foreign nationals in the country.

     

    BR Fare Increases

    Mr. Adley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will indicate the criteria he employed in determining which lines should be subject to his intervention in the decision by British Rail on fare increases on individual lines; and what is his policy on intervention in day-to-day decisions on management within nationalised industries.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The boards of nationalised industries are appointed to manage their industries in accordance with the financial frameworks and objectives set by the Government. The Government have no wish to involve themselves in day-to-day management matters. However, the chairmen regularly consult Ministers about major management decisions which may have an impact on the achievement of their objectives. British Rail’s recent fares increases are a case in point. In commenting on British Rail’s proposals, Ministers took account of the citizen’s charter principle that increases should be related to quality of service; the need to fund BR’s large investment programme and our general policy that the burden of funding BR should be progressively shifted from taxpayers to passengers.

     

    French Prime Minister

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to defence issues were discussed in his meeting with his French counterpart on 24 September in London.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    Mme. Cresson and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister concentrated on European Community questions on 24 September. They discussed the roles of NATO, the Western European Union and the European Council in the defence field. The Prime Minister stressed the importance of Europe doing more for its own defence, in a way which does not undermine NATO. They agreed on the importance of enhanced bilateral collaboration in this sphere.

     

    Dalai Lama

    Mr. Graham : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to meet the Dalai Lama of Tibet in the near future.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no plans to do so.

     

    Environmental Protection Agency

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress made over the past three months to establish the central agency for environmental protection and enhancement.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    The Government’s proposals for a new, independent environment agency were set out in a consultation paper issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 3 October. A copy of the consultation paper, on which views have been invited by 31 January 1992, has been placed in the Library.

     

    Research and Development

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when the annual review of Government-funded research and development, “R & D 91”, was published; how many copies of the report were printed; at what cost; and what attempts have been made to circulate the report to interested organisations and libraries in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    The annual review of Government-funded research and development, “R & D 91”, was published on 24 July 1991. Two thousand copies were printed and it is on sale through HMSO for £25. The printing and publishing costs totalled £25,800 and are offset by sales to date of 1,396 : copies of the review’s tables are also available on computer-readable disks.

    A total of 355 copies have been distributed to the Libraries of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, United Kingdom Government Departments, United Kingdom-based embassies, United States National Science Foundation, the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology, research councils, Universities Funding Council, Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and in response to requests from a number of other interested organisations.

     

    Soviet Union

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister is he will make a statement on his visit to Moscow in September.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    During my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow on 1 September, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, he had meetings with President Gorbachev, President Yeltsin and members of the committee for the management of the national economy. It was the first visit to the Soviet Union by a foreign Head of Government following the failed coup on 19 August. The Prime Minister expressed our strong support for the continuing process of economic and political reform in the Soviet Union and discussed ways in which we and our partners could assist. The Prime Minister also had a first meeting with the Prime Ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania following their independence, and agreed with them on the desirability of developing close and friendly relations.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish details of the number of telephone conversations, by date, he had with (a) President Gorbachev, (b) President Yeltsin and (c) officials of the Soviet and Russian Federation Governments, respectively, during August; and what was the purpose of these telephone conversations.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to President Gorbachev on 22 August. President Gorbachev gave an account of his views on the events surrounding the coup and welcomed the prospect of a visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Moscow both in my right hon. Friend’s capacity as Prime Minister and as chairman of the G7.

    The Prime Minister spoke to President Yeltsin on two occasions. On 20 August he expressed British concern at the coup attempt, gave details of British and European Community actions and asked what other support the west could give to democratic institutions. On 21 August my right hon. Friend was able to congratulate President Yeltsin on his bravery, and that of the Russian people, in a memorable two days and to express the hope that my right hon. Friend would be able to meet him in the near future.

     

    China

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to (a) the environment in general and (b) the Montreal protocol and protection of the ozone layer, he had with Ministers of the Chinese Government during his visit to Beijing in September.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    None, though I understand that China has recently signalled the intention to satisfy the Montreal protocol.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister when the Cabinet Office drew up rules governing party political activities of Ministers of the Crown when travelling abroad on public business; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    Each Prime Minister, on assuming office, issues guidance to Ministers on such issues. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to publish such guidance.

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions when he has participated in party political activities when travelling abroad on public business.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does from time to time meet fellow Conservatives in the margins of public duties. He also often meets opposition leaders of all political persuasions both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Statement – 6 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep statement held on 6th October 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When President Bush announced his proposals a week or so ago, I said that if Gorbachev responded in like fashion then it could well be a turning point in the peace process. We have now had a response from President Gorbachev. At first sight it does seem to be a very comprehensive response, and that is very welcome. If it is what it seems to be, then there may be a unique opportunity to see a dramatic de-escalation in nuclear weapons. I welcome that very much, and we would want very carefully to study the proposals that have been laid out before us. I think there are several points to make about this. Firstly, what has happened today is an absolute vindication of NATO strategy over recent years. Had the West not held to that strategy, I very much doubt that we would have seen the remarkable events of recent weeks. And secondly, although these announcements are very welcome indeed, I believe we do have to bear in mind that the Soviet Union still remains a very large military and nuclear power, and we would want to look very carefully to see how these matters develop.

    QUESTION:

    Does this mean that you would consider making further cuts in Britain’s arsenal, and in particular reconsider Trident?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t believe that would be an appropriate response. We have made reductions in our own nuclear weapons over recent weeks, and we have announced those. The Trident is the essential minimum defence that we need in this country, and we must maintain Trident. The Soviet Union, despite these very welcome reductions, are still an immense nuclear power and immense military power, and we need that essential minimum deterrent that Trident provides, and we will keep it.

    QUESTION:

    And the question of nuclear testing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, we will study very carefully all the proposals in the Soviet Union plans. I think at this stage it is wise to examine them carefully before we respond.

    QUESTION:

    There is an opinion poll in today’s Sunday Times which suggests that voters believe the Tories will privatise the National Health Service. What’s your response?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There’s no question of privatising the Health Service. I have made that clear repeatedly, and that is well known by everyone in politics, and I am very surprised that this canard continues to be repeated week after week and month after month. There will be no privatisation of the National Health Service. Not now or in the future. I hope that is now entirely clear to everyone.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 3 October 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in London, held on Thursday 3rd October 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The meeting we have had this afternoon was a meeting that came about as a result of a discussion I had in The Hague a week or so ago with Prime Minister Lubbers. We decided on that occasion that we needed a tripartite discussion with the Commission, the Presidency of the European Council and myself as Chairman of the G7 to look at the economic situation in the Soviet Union and the particular problem that the Soviets may face this winter in terms of food shortages. That is what we have been discussing for two and a half hours this afternoon.

    It seems possible, perhaps even probable, that there will be food shortages this winter in the Soviet Union but we do not yet have accurate information to tell us what food will be short, where it will be short or in what scale food assistance may be needed.

    What we have been discussing today is the scale of contribution that the European Community itself would be prepared to make available in case of need. We have hammered out what we think would be appropriate this afternoon and the details of that will be laid before the Economic and Finance Ministers on Monday so that they may discuss the matter and deal with the question of resourcing it.

    If they are able to agree that on Monday, as I hope they will, I then propose to write to our G7 partners, particularly of course the United States, Canada and Japan, and invite them to make also on a contingent basis a similar gesture to ensure that there is ample food available for any shortages that there might be in the Soviet Union this winter.

    When that has been agreed, as I hope it will be, we would then anticipate that there would be a political delegation comprising members of the Community and members of the G7 who would then go to the Soviet Union to deal with the practical matters that still need to be determined: how the food is distributed, in what volume it is distributed and how to deal with the shortages and ensure the food is there when it is actually needed. There is a very substantial logistics problem to be solved and we believe that is unlikely to be solved unless there is a Round Table discussion between those prepared to provide the food – the donors – and those who are likely to be in need – the Soviet Union and the individual republics.

    So that has been the substance of what we have been discussing this afternoon. I am not yet in a position to let you have details of that, I think the proposals that we have determined this afternoon need first to be discussed by our Community partners in ECOFIN and then a statement will be made on Monday.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, have you a headline figure for aid that we may be giving?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I have not a headline figure I can give you this evening. We have a proposal to put before our partners in ECOFIN but it is for the Finance Ministers I think properly to determine that and they will do that on Monday.

    QUESTION:

    Will this be food?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It will be food and humanitarian assistance and the figure I would imagine will be released on Monday after the ECOFIN meeting.

    QUESTION:

    Was there any discussion of European union and Maastricht?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No that was not the purpose of the meeting this afternoon and all the time that was available to us was taken up with discussion on various aspects of the Soviet Union.

    QUESTION:

    Do you feel that this shows a way ahead in terms of developing a common foreign policy on an issue like this, that you have shown that Europe can cooperate very effectively when it comes to presenting a united face?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Europe has been cooperating very effectively on the basis of a common foreign policy agreed at government level through the European Council for several years, it is very effective and very efficient. That is the way that we would wish to continue to do things, but that is not of course what was proposed in the Dutch text some time ago. But that matter was not discussed today.

    QUESTION:

    Is the amount of aid a substantial increase on the amount that is going at the moment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes it is but I cannot give you the figures, that is a matter still to be finally determined by our Finance colleagues.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We were discussing food and humanitarian assistance today, that is the most immediate and most urgent matter and that was the substance of our discussion at the moment. Information to discuss wider matters frankly is not yet available.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think the Soviet Union is now capable of absorbing large scale aid or will it just get lost in the confusion there?

    QUESTION:

    It was for that reason that I said this would be a contingent package and it would only be released as and when we could see where the shortages were and the scale in which they arose and that is why we envisaged there would be a meeting after these packages had been finalised with representatives with the appropriate authorities in the Soviet Union.

    QUESTION:

    Can you match the 10 billion dollars they are talking about?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Our colleagues in ECOFIN are going to discuss what we can make available as our share of the general assistance on Monday.

    QUESTION:

    Are you now confident that the Soviet economy can actually deal with the sort of aid that you can offer?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I repeat, we are talking about humanitarian aid, we are talking about food aid and medicines this winter and I do not think the West is likely to stand by when they can see a positive shortage if they are in a position to assist. We do not yet know what the scale of the shortage might be. If I can draw it back into your memory, there was a suggestion two or three years ago that Poland would be in similar difficulties throughout one winter and in practice Poland was not in those difficulties. So what we are preparing is a contingency package to be available if it is needed and to the extent that it is needed it will then be disbursed but we need a proper mechanism for doing it.

    QUESTION:

    Did not Mr Yavlinski, who is in charge of coordination of the economy in my country, provide you with any particular information about the scale?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Yavlinski provided us with various interesting information that we are at present absorbing.

    QUESTION:

    Although you did not discuss political union, does the subject of Europe, along with the domestic problems of rising unemployment, make a considerable gamble out of a delayed election for you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have been saying for months for those who wish to listen that I wanted to see this country come out of recession and see it through recession and that I did not want distractions in the run-up to the two important inter-governmental conferences that we will have at Maastricht this winter. That has been my position, publicly stated, on many occasions in recent months, it is still my position.

    QUESTION:

    No hesitation at all about the delay then?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have made the point on numerous occasions over recent months and I repeat it again tonight.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Soviet Union – 25 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Soviet Union, made in an interview in London on Wednesday 25th September 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked who he thought would be the strongest leader to come through in the Soviet Union].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When I went to the Soviet Union I had the opportunity of meeting President Gorbachev, President Yeltsin and a large number of other Soviet leaders. Since then back in London I have had the opportunity of discussions with Mr Lushkev, Mr Sobchek and with a number of other leaders as well. So I have had the opportunity of seeing most of the significant Soviet leaders within the last three weeks or so, and it has been a series of very worthwhile meetings.

    For the immediate future I think that Mr Gorbachev and Mr Yeltsin will work together, they have different though complementary roles, they recognise that it is necessary internally for them to work together and I believe they recognise that it is necessary externally for them to work together for the time being.

    What will happen in the longer term future no-one can say. I believe there is no doubt that greater authority and influence is moving to the republics than was previously the case, but there is a role in the centre and we must wait and see how the Russian political system settles down, it may well be a form of confederation with both a continuing role for the President of the Union and the President of the republics.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked which policies the G7 should have towards the Soviet Union].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me put the answer to that question in a proper context. What has happened in the Soviet Union in the last few months is of historic importance, we have seen the ending of a communist state, the end of communism and the rapid development of a country that wants to move towards the sort of market system that we are familiar with in the West and that you are familiar with in Japan. They are absolutely momentous changes and nobody should understate that in any way.

    Because they are so important economically, politically and socially I believe the G7 countries should assist the Soviet Union to go down the process of reform, we cannot do it for them. Any help that we provide to the Soviet Union will be peripheral to the help that they must themselves provide in order to continue this reform path. But providing they have a proper reform programme and providing they make their own contribution, and I think by that we must look to see they have a firm commitment to reduce their defence expenditure, then I think it is in everyone’s interest, the interest of people in the Soviet Union and the interest of people in the rest of the world to help them carry that reform programme forward and that is what we would wish to do.

    In the short term this winter that may mean assisting with food, with the distribution of food, with all sorts of mechanistic assistance, with the development of schemes such as the British Know How scheme so that we can encourage collaboration between our companies, joint enterprises, and also so that we can give them the advice and experience we have gathered from years in how to run a successful mixed economy.

    I know that Japan has very significant joint collaborative schemes in the Soviet Union and I believe that is the right way forward and I think you will find many other countries going precisely down that path.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the northern territory issue had been discussed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is very close coordination amongst the G7 countries. For example, I liaised with Prime Minister Kaifu both before and after my visit to the Soviet Union and we exchange joint experiences where we think that would be helpful. I did raise the question of the northern islands with President Gorbachev, I cannot say I got an answer that encouraged me to believe there was going to be swift movement, I did make it clear to him that I thought movement on the northern islands would be very helpful for their relationship with Japan and for their wider relationships, but President Gorbachev made no commitments on our discussion.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to European Democratic Union Conference – 12 September 1991

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech to the European Democratic Union Conservative Party Leaders’ Conference, given on Thursday 12th September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Rt Hon John Major MP Thursday 12 September 1991 533/91

    Extract from a speech by the Rt Hon John Major MP (Huntingdon), Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister, to the European Democratic Union Conservative Party Leaders’ Conference:

    Jacques Chirac and I met in London a few weeks ago. We talked, among other things, about the future of our continent. I valued that discussion. But neither of us could then foresee that within a matter of weeks, we would be witnesses to one of the most dramatic revolutions of the 20th Century.

    I do not need to tell an audience in this city about the perils, as well as the opportunities, of revolution. This new revolution brings tremendous opportunities. But it brings uncertainties as well. And risks. They combine into a tremendous challenge, but it is not just to the people of the Soviet Union. It is also to the governments and peoples of the whole of Europe. It is about that challenge that I want to talk today.

    For our parties of the centre right, the sudden and total collapse of Soviet Communism must be a special source of satisfaction. A dark and discredited ideology lies in ruins; rejected by the people it ensnared.

    It was an ideology which promised power to the people; but it drained power from the people. It promised prosperity; but it brought poverty.

    It did not cherish initiative; it did crush all personal economic aspiration. It replaced the inventiveness of the human imagination with the mumbo-jumbo of Marxist doctrine. It lived by tyranny, oppression and lies. And even the failed coup epitomised one of its most striking characteristics: enormous incompetence, even in the pursuit of its own misbegotten objectives.

    Brian Mulroney recently told me a story of a conversation with President Gorbachev during his visit to Canada. President Gorbachev asked: what was the secret of Canada’s success as a wheat producer? What did Canada have that the Soviet Union did not? The answer, Brian Mulroney said, was quite simple: the Canadian farmer worked, not for the party nor for the state but for himself and his family. Like farmers in all our countries, he was prepared to work from first light until after dark knowing that he could improve his lot and pass on something worthwhile to future generations. That was Canada’s ‘secret’.

    It is to the enormous credit of President Gorbachev that he saw clearly the flaws and injustices in the Soviet system. Ultimately, Soviet Communism was doomed to collapse because its foundations were rotten. But it was sustained by repression. It was President Gorbachev’s decision to move from repression to reform which opened the doors to freedom. They have opened first to the people of Eastern and Central Europe and now to the people of the Soviet Union. For this act alone, his place in history is secure.

    Today, there is no longer a Communist Party in the Soviet Union. It is an irony that while the Communist Party is actually banned in Russia, Communist parties survive in most of our countries. So where are they now going to look for their ideological lead? To Cuba, just as Soviet troops are starting to withdraw? Or China?

    I have just returned from China. I made that visit in the interests of the continued freedom and prosperity of Hong Kong. But I had another purpose too: to try to bring the influence of the free world to bear on the leaders of China, and to show the people of China that they are not forgotten by the West.

    Even under the harsh and baleful influence of Communist rule, China is changing. The province of Canton is in a ferment of free enterprise. Take a helicopter and fly over Hong Kong and you will see that, beyond the line of the border with China, the lights of commerce and industry burn almost as brightly. The people there have some of the freedoms of the market place. They can benefit from their own hard work and enterprise. But they do not have personal liberty – the most precious freedom of all. It may take time, but I believe that political and personal freedom must inevitably follow the liberation of market forces.

    In the meantime, we in the West must keep pushing at the door. I raised with Chinese leaders a large number of human rights cases. They did not dismiss them out of hand. They recognised that they had to listen and that they had to respond. They would prefer not to. But they did. A Hong Kong citizen who was in prison in China a week ago is back home in Hong Kong today.

    I believe we must keep up the pressure on them. If every visitor from the West reminds China of their obligations, as a member of the United Nations, and a Permanent Member of the Security Council in particular, then that pressure will produce results.

    The bastions of Communism have crumbled. But it still has its last outposts. No one can rule out desperate rearguard actions. But all the evidence is that we are now opening a new chapter. I am particularly delighted that our friends from the Baltic Republics are opening it with us. They have rejoined the European family – and not a moment too soon. Soon, with Britain’s support, they will become full members of the United Nations.

    None of these changes are easy. Yugoslavia is a vivid example of a country teetering between self-determination and self-destruction. It is a reminder too of our responsibilities as democratic Europeans.

    These are events of world significance. But, first and foremost, they affect our own continent of Europe.

    At the end of the Second World War, Europe was split into two. The countries that emerged from war into freedom and democracy took two great steps to defend their liberties. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was formed. The European Community was launched. The fact that so many other European countries have since sought to join the Community, or to form associations with it, is the greatest signal of its success. Now the part of our continent that was denied the political and economic renaissance that the rest of us have enjoyed is emerging into freedom and democracy. For the rest of us that poses a unique responsibility. We cannot and must not turn our back on them.

    We have the immediate, urgent duty to throw them a lifeline. We have already done this for the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. Each of our countries individually is helping. We in Britain have, through our ‘Know How’ fund, started to help the countries of Eastern and Central Europe develop the infrastructure of a modern economy. We have helped with privatisation in Poland; with the Stock Exchange in Budapest; with the banking sector in Czechoslovakia. Polish-speaking civil servants from London are today at work in Poland’s Ministry of Labour in Kracow.

    Now we must do the same for the Soviet Union. Already, in July at the Group of Seven Summit, we agreed on:

    (i) Special Association for the Soviet Union with the IMF and the World Bank;

    (ii) Support for the Soviet Union and its republics from all the relevant international organisations;

    (iii) Intensified technical assistance – especially in the fields of energy, the conversion of defence industries, food distribution, nuclear safety and transport.

    (iv) Improved access to western markets.

    The greatest single obstacle to the implementation of that plan was indecision within the Soviet Union. Would the Soviet Union go down the path of reform – genuine reform – or would the Soviet Union still try to combine partial political freedoms with economic centralism? We now know the answer to that question. The coup designed to halt reform has failed. It is now the catalyst to accelerate it. Only the Soviet Union and its republics can determine their future course. But we can help, both in the short term and for the future. First of all:

    (i) We must assess their immediate needs urgently. They may need food aid to get them through this winter. If so, we and our partners will be generous with our help.

    (ii) The Soviet Union and its republics will need an efficient infrastructure for food processing and distribution. In Britain we have assembled a team of our major food producers and distributors. They will go to the Soviet Union in a few days’ time to discover how they can help with food processing and distribution. Other countries of the Group of Seven are sending teams of their own. We have all agreed to pool our assessment by the end of this month.

    (iii) We must speed up the implementation of existing food credits.

    (iv) We must accelerate technical assistance and ‘Know How’ programmes.

    (v) We must get the Soviet Union and the IMF into discussion so that the IMF can assess the Soviet economy and its requirements. I am pleased to say that a team from the IMF is already in the Soviet Union.

    (vi) And we must accelerate the special association of the Soviet Union with the IMF that was agreed at the G7 Summit;

    This will be a massive task. It is not a task for the Group of Seven alone, or the European Community alone. It is a task for all of us who enjoy prosperity and who have a stake in the Soviet Union’s new freedom.

    That is the lifeline approach. But we must look also to the longer term. The people of the Soviet Union will have to decide what political system they want. When I was there ten days ago, one could feel the ground of history shifting beneath one’s feet. There was much uncertainty. Boris Yeltsin told me that the future shape of the Soviet Union would not necessarily be a federation or a confederation but something new and unique. Already, however, certain points were emerging. Many of them were confirmed at last week’s meeting of the Congress of Peoples’ Deputies, notably single armed forces for the Soviet Union; confirmation of the Soviet Union’s adherence to its international obligations and treaties; central control of nuclear weapons.

    I pressed the Soviet leaders particularly on the issue of defence spending. For a country in dire economic straits, to spend 25 per cent of its resources on military expenditure is unsustainable and unacceptable. They must help themselves to be sure of our help. I have assurances from President Gorbachev, President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Silayev that defence spending is being cut – and will be cut further.

    We cannot determine the future of the Soviet Union. But we can help – or we can hinder. We must offer them a new deal – and not a raw deal.

    I would like to set out what I believe should be the basis of our relationship with the newest European democracy, or democracies.

    We want them:

    i) to create a genuinely democratic society;

    ii) to develop a free market economy;

    iii) to secure a stable and just system of government with protection for minorities;

    iv) to play a constructive part in world affairs;

    v) and to become an integral part of democratic Europe.

    The idea of a common European home was once a slogan. Now it can become a reality.

    We cannot allow one artificial division in Europe to be replaced by another. We in the European Community cannot say: ‘Here is our club.

    We have made the rules. And we will make new rules regardless of your interests’.

    Under the Treaty of Rome, any democratic European country can apply for membership of the Community. Eastern and Central European countries have made clear that they see full membership of the Community as their ultimate goal. I believe the Community should welcome them in as soon as they are ready politically and economically. We must be prepared to widen our horizons and widen our membership.

    Already, at British initiative, we are, in the European Community, speeding progress towards Association Agreements for Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland. Of course, this involves some sacrifice. Association Agreements mean opening our markets to Eastern and Central European Countries. That means more competition – including in some agricultural products. But it is the right way ahead.

    There is no purpose in giving countries aid and denying them trade access. Such policies would leave them on a drip feed of dependence for ever. It would be absurd and potentially dangerous, to preach the virtues of the free market but to practise old-fashioned protectionism. I think there will now be a real effort in the European Community to reach an agreement by the end of this month on agricultural access for Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

    I have encouraged the Commission to be in urgent discussion with the newly independent Baltic Republics. They too will want a special relationship with the European Community. That may take the form of a Trade and Co-operation agreement leading, in due course, to an Association Agreement. In the longer run they may seek full membership. That possibility should be open to them too. And we should tell them so now.

    I believe the European Community must hold out the hand of friendship and cooperation also to Russia and other republics of the Soviet Union. It is too early to say what form the relationship will take. But we should not close off options. It is no use saying the Community would not be the same if Russia became closely associated with it. It might have to change. But then we do not live in an unchanging world. The Community will have to change with it.

    The Community’s strengths to date has come from its dynamism. We have not stood still. Nor can we now. That does not mean that we should neglect the development of the Community in its present form. But we must ensure that that development opens doors rather than closes them. We should be lowering barriers, not raising hurdles.

    We Europeans must heed the aspirations and choices of 400 million European citizens. There is an unmistakable feeling that our continent is coming together. European union will not be led by politicians. It will be led by people. Politicians must not create barriers for half of Europe to step over.

    In the West we already enjoy fundamental freedoms and human rights. Now we are extending their compass with new opportunities to work, trade and travel. We may have to work out new patterns of co-operation. The Soviet Union has the enormous task of adapting itself. We should be realistic. We should be practical. We should not push it in the direction of unrealisable objectives. Equally, we should not set artificial limits on its development. For years, the objective of a Single Market for the members of the EC was a far off dream. Now, it is becoming a reality. We should not close our mind to the prospect of the European Community embracing many of the newly emerging democracies. One day we shall surely do so.

    That is one side of the openness I am talking about. But there is another kind of openness we in the Community should bear in mind as we work out the shape of the new European union. We must heed the way the world is moving – towards more decentralised, more accountable structures. In our talks on political union, we must enshrine a principle which captures the spirit of the age: it is the principle that decisions should always be taken at the lowest practicable level, close to the people they affect.

    In security too, openness and trust must be our objectives. They are the new key words in the language – some would say jargon – of security. The disintegration of the Warsaw Pact presents new opportunities for confidence-building. The CFE Treaty offers us the prize of a proper verification regime. We should redouble our efforts to secure a ban on chemical weapons. We must strengthen the convention on biological warfare. And we must strive to set up a UN arms register to control the sales of conventional weapons to the Third World.

    These opportunities are there to be taken. And why are they there? They are there because the Atlantic Alliance has held fast. It has provided the security which is the prerequisite for our immense economic progress. Like the European Community, it has provided an outstanding model of co-operation. Like the Community, it offers us a solid framework within which to manage the process of change.

    It would be folly to suppose that the great changes of recent weeks justify neglect of our defence. There is too much uncertainty, too many nuclear weapons, too many countries with nuclear ambitions to allow complacency. Of course we Europeans should do more for our own defence. We have in the Western European Union the means to do it. Let us turn it into a real European pillar for the Atlantic Alliance. Let us use it to meet security threats from outside the NATO area.

    Recent developments make the continued American and Canadian commitment to our continent more necessary, not less. It is not doctrine which holds NATO together, but shared interests and needs. As we develop our growing European defence identity, we must ensure that it is compatible with, not in conflict with, our mutual obligations as members of the North Atlantic Alliance.

    Last, but not least, we should remember that trade is a peace maker – one of the most powerful and persuasive. Countries locked together in trade have mutual interests that prevent them being locked together in conflict.

    Trade is the lifeblood of the international economy. When trade is relatively free, the international economy grows quickly and vigorously and all countries benefit. When trade is restricted, individual economies suffer, even those of the would-be beneficiaries of protectionism.
    Free trade is vital for future world prosperity. It also provides vital underpinning for good political relations.

    The GATT is at the heart of the world trading system. The Uruguay Round is now at a critical stage. The hopes of the developing world as much as the industrialised world rest on a successful outcome. At the G7 Summit in July, we all undertook to make a successful outcome this year a personal priority.

    The EC is now the world’s largest trading entity. Together with the US and Japan it accounts for half the world’s trade. We have a central responsibility for maintaining a strong, open world trading system.

    We are already dismantling barriers inside the Community. That should be part of a wider process of opening up world markets. We should vigorously resist pressures for a Fortress Europe. And we should guard against trading blocs based on Europe, the USA and the Pacific. That would be deeply damaging to world prosperity – and to world stability.

    Openness in trade will be the test of our commitment to a real European union. For many of the countries represented here today, it will make the difference between prosperity and poverty. The Twelve should rise to the challenge, and that includes agriculture. The debate may be technical; but the underlying issues are fundamental. We talk of a new world order. It is fragile and flawed. But the idea is not unrealistic. If we were to fail to reach agreement on how the world is to trade and do business, we would deal a body blow to our hopes of a new world order. And the damage would be entirely self inflicted.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the open society is on the march. Not just in Europe, but in every continent. Different countries will have their own ways of pursuing reform. But the lesson of the 20th Century is filtering through: freedom is the precondition of a happier world – and free markets are the precondition of a more prosperous world. It falls to us Europeans to spread that simple message, and live up to it ourselves. To fail would be unforgivable. To succeed will bring prizes beyond calculation. There is no better place to start than here on our own continent. And no better time to start than now.

  • Mr Major’s Comments after Meeting with President Mitterrand – 11 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments after the meeting with President Mitterrand, made in an interview in Paris on Wednesday 11th September 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how the talks had progressed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With President Mitterrand, as ever very friendly, very constructive and very worthwhile. We covered a wide range of subjects. As we meet and speak so frequently, much of the background can be pushed aside and we can deal with the matters of immediate important so we dealt at some length with the present circumstances in the Soviet Union, what is happening and we believe will happen. We have a very similar view on the present problems in Yugoslavia and the importance of the peace conference and the arbitration process; we spent a good deal of time on that. We discussed also the Intergovernmental Conference and the need to move forward and try and reach an agreement in Maastricht later on this year. We discussed the Association Agreements with the Eastern European nations and we both believe that a solution to the present difficulties will be found for that within this month, so it was very useful and very constructive and we were able to touch on a number of other matters as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was still division between France wanting to deepen the European Community and him wanting to widen it].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a whole series of matters to be considered about both deepening and widening the Community. We are considering deepening in the two Intergovernmental Conferences and I think we will reach satisfactory conclusions on that at Maastricht though precisely what they will be at the moment is unclear. There is a great deal of discussion, a great deal of hard talking, a great deal of negotiation before that occurs but my position for a long time has been that I don’t want a girdle thrown around the Community. Nobody in the Community wants to say: “Here we are, nobody will join us in future!”. That isn’t what the construction of the Community is about; we want to see it widen as well. Half of Europe after the War turned out to be free and that became part of NATO by and large and it became part of the Community; the other half is increasingly free; I think they will want to play an increasing role in the economic process in the West. Over time, I think we would wish to see that.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on Plane from Hong Kong – 6 September 1991

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s on-the-record statement on the plane from Hong Kong to London, held on 6th September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Perhaps I should firstly congratulate those survivors who have managed the complete trip to United States, the Soviet Union, China and also Hong Kong; I hope you are going to get a few hours off when you eventually get back.

    I thought it might be useful just to cover some of the matters we need to carry forward as a result of the discussions of the last few days. I think we have discussed the follow-up to the United States visit before and I need not go over that again.

    On the Soviet Union, I have now sent messages to the Heads of Government of all the G7 countries, reporting on the discussions I had there and my impressions there. This is fairly standard practice amongst us; everyone is immensely interested in what is happening in the Soviet Union and we try and concert our opinions and the information we have as much as possible.

    In terms of practical follow-up, you may know that John Gummer had the first meeting with the Food Consortium Group in London yesterday so that we might be able to move forward to providing some practical food assistance to the Soviet Union during this winter. I don’t think that is going to be needed for a while but there are quite a lot of arrangements to be made, firstly to determine what is needed, secondly to determine how to get it there and thirdly, to determine how actually to distribute it inside the Soviet Union when we have dealt with the earlier matters so there is quite a lot of organisation to be put in hand.

    We are still in touch with the Soviet Union and with the IMF with a view to encouraging an early meeting between them; that seems to us to be a useful way to proceed. IMF advice is needed, the Soviet Union are clearly keen to have that advice; and we are trying to push that meeting as speedily as we possibly can.

    The expert discussions have been continuing with the Soviet Union, mainly with the new group who are looking after economic matters, Mr. Yavlinsky in particular, to decide how to deal with some of the other problems they have and identify precisely what they are and how serious they are because one point that can’t be emphasised too often is that there is still a great degree of uncertainty about what practical assistance is most appropriate at the present time.

    The Foreign Secretary, Douglas, will be going back to Moscow on Monday; he is going there for the Human Rights Conference but it is probable – overwhelmingly likely – that he will have meetings when he is there with President Gorbachev, Mr. Popov, Shevardnadze and a number of others; arrangements for that are not finalised yet but I hope we will get those finalised within a day and as soon as we have done that of course we will let you know in the usual way.

    I have one piece of good news for you that I am sure you will be pleased to hear. All of us had the opportunity of meeting Mrs. Gordievsky earlier this week and her family. I now have solid confirmation that she has been released; she is able to come home and she will be flying home to London today and will be in London with her family early this evening and will be met by Malcolm Caithness from the Foreign Office so that we can ensure that she is properly looked after. This has been a very long trail, as you know. It is many years since Margaret Thatcher first raised the question of Mrs. Gordievsky and her family with the Soviet Union; it is a matter we have persistently raised since; raised it with Mr. Shevardnadze when I was Foreign Secretary; Douglas has raised it repeatedly with Shevardnadze, Bessmertnykh and I have raised it also with President Gorbachev, so I think it does illustrate on human rights that persistent pressure eventually does pay off and that of course is a message we might take to heart for other parts of the world as well.

    On China, I am still awaiting confirmation that the Hong Kong pro-democracy demonstrator Lor Hi Sing [phon] is being released and has been released. We are pursuing that still in Peking. I think what we are looking for is not just a release on bail in China but a release from China back to Hong Kong. We have not yet got that; we are still pursuing it and we must wait and see how that turns out.

    In terms of following up the discussions we had in China, Douglas will be meeting Quian Qichen, the Chinese Foreign Minister, later this month in New York and he will carry forward a number of the matters that we were discussing there. We will also be in touch with a full briefing on events there and impressions there with Mrs. Thatcher who will be visiting Peking later on this month, Mr. Andreotti, the Prime Minister of Italy, who is also visiting Peking later this month with Mr. Kaifu who returned a couple of weeks ago from China and who was kind enough to send me his impressions and I think I will also be reporting to President Bush and Community Heads of Government on my impressions there and on the policy matters that we discussed during the last couple of days.

    On Hong Kong, the principal follow-up point is that the British/Chinese Joint Liaison Group – that is the official group that carries forward all the detailed discussions that flow from the Joint Declaration – will be meeting later on this month in London both to carry forward their normal discussions and to firm-up details on a number of the matters we agreed in principle in Peking earlier this week.

    The principal impression on Hong Kong, I think, is one of very great importance: there was no doubt in my mind, from the businessmen I talked to in Hong Kong, from the Governor, from the people we met at the university and elsewhere, that there is now a very great degree of confidence there. There is a great deal of confidence amongst the business community; they feel much more secure now that the work in the Joint Liaison Group is carried forward and much more confident about future investment. I hope that confidence extends to British investors as well. The airport project will be very large and I think there are many opportunities for people to submit tenders and l hope they are competitive tenders.

    So those are the principal follow-up points. I can’t claim to you that that is an exclusive list but I think those are the principal points we need to follow up from the meetings over the last few days.