The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Yugoslavia

  • PMQT – 3 December 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Congdon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Congdon : Is my right hon. Friend aware that many businesses are finding it difficult enough without the added burden of bureaucratic interference and excessive regulation? Can he assure businesses in my constituency that he will do everything he can to reduce the number of petty rules and regulations emanating both from Whitehall and from Brussels?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I think that it is time that we stood back again and looked at the whole burden of regulation–that imposed by the House, that imposed by the Community and that imposed by local authorities. That is precisely what I have asked my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to do. I shall be calling in all Cabinet Ministers in the new year to discuss how we can cut that red tape still further. Today I have announced a new scrutiny involving the private sector, which will look at the way in which EC regulations impact upon business. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will announce details of this shortly.

    Mr. John Smith : On the day when the Post Office has made a staggering announcement of 15,000 job losses, will the Prime Minister tell the House what action he proposes to take to stem the rising tide of unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : Everyone, of course, regrets job losses wherever they occur. In the case of the Post Office, I am glad that these are both to be spread and to be sought voluntarily. The only way to create long-term sustainable jobs is to create the right policies that produce long-term sustainable growth. That is precisely what we are putting in place.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not realise that we have heard both these regrets and these excuses in every month of the two years in which he has been Prime Minister? Does he not accept the reality of modern Britain, that there are 52 unemployed people seeking every job vacant in the west midlands and 72 seeking every job vacant in London? What does he propose to do about it?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have been listening a moment or so ago. If he is really concerned about jobs, why does he not drop his commitment to a payroll tax, the social chapter and the minimum wage? The right hon. and learned Gentleman should remember what happened last time a Labour Government–of which he was a member–tried to buy its way out of recession : 27 per cent. inflation and no growth.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it not pathetic that, after 15 years of Conservative Government and after the Prime Minister has been in office for two years, he is still seeking to blame others for unemployment? Does he not realise that redundancy does not just affect the Post Office ; in this week alone, we have the Post Office, Ford and Cammell Laird? Does he not understand that unemployment is now a cancer eating up the fabric of British society? When, at long last, will he take some action against unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman expresses concern about Cammell Laird. The defence policies that his party espouses would put hundreds of thousands of people out of work. He conveniently forgets that labour spent the first half of this year calling for swingeing tax increases that would have put many other people out of work. Our priority has been to create the right conditions for growth. We have cut inflation to under 4 per cent., we have cut tax rates for businesses and earners and we have reduced interest rates to 7 per cent., the lowest in the Community and half the level of two years ago.

    Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman missed the latest Community survey in the Financial Times–[Interruption.] I gather that he did. If he had not, perhaps he would be better informed. That showed that British business men are now displaying much more confidence in British prospects than their continental counterparts are showing in their prospects. When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman start talking this country up and stop talking it down?

    Mr. King : Against the background of the further attempts by the IRA to mount a bombing campaign in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, did my right hon. Friend note in the recent elections in the Republic of Ireland that Sinn Fein massed the massive total of 1.6 per cent. of support and that of the 42 candidates who stood, 40 lost their deposits? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates that any attempt to pretend that there is popular democratic support for the campaign of violence is totally fraudulent?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly noted the statistics to which my right hon. Friend refers. They reflect the disgust that is felt not only in this country but in the Republic of Ireland about the way in which the IRA seeks to bomb, kill and damage people’s lives indiscriminately.

     

    Q2. Mr. Mullin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Mullin : Does the Prime Minister recall that in September 1986 he filled in a questionnaire sent to him by the author Mr. Martin Short agreeing that police officers, magistrates, Members of Parliament, councillors and other public officials who were Freemasons should disclose that fact? If he has forgotten, I have with me a copy of the questionnaire with his signature at the bottom of it. Is that still his position and, if so, may I expect his support for my Secret Societies (Declaration) Bill which comes up for Second Reading on 29 January?

    The Prime Minister : I commend the hon. Gentleman for his ingenuity and research. It remains my personal view, as set out at that time. I shall examine his Bill and my timetable and see what answer I come up with.

    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last week alone, 17 convoys of British troops have delivered nearly 1,000 tonnes of food to the stricken citizens of Bosnia? Will he reassure the House that it is not the Government’s intention to deploy British troops in a combat role, whatever the merits of enforcing a no-fly zone, in what is essentially a civil war?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we already have 2,000 troops in Yugoslavia. They are there to deliver humanitarian aid. They are, as my hon. Friend points out, doing that with great skill, persistence and bravery. We have taken a leading role in many aspects in Yugoslavia, in sanctions monitoring in the Adriatic, and that has now been stepped up. We have, of course, supported the establishment of a no-fly zone. If further action is needed to enforce that no-fly zone, we should wish to consider that with our allies and partners in the United Nations, but we have no immediate plans to go further.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister not yet realise that, despite the best efforts of our troops on the ground, the situation in and around Bosnia is not getting better but worse? Does he not realise that time is running out for saving lives and for stopping the spread of the conflict? Does he further not realise that whether it is in London in August or in Geneva in two weeks’ time, peace efforts will continue to fail for so long as agreements on paper are not backed by the will to enforce them on the ground?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman refers to the London conference on Yugoslavia, which this country called and which set a new framework for negotiations. He is right in saying that when those negotiations are there it is necessary for those who reach agreements to keep them, and we will certainly do what we can to ensure that. The right hon. Member, like everyone else, wants to see an end to the fighting and suffering in the former Yugoslavia. I have to tell him that we are not talking about the invasion of one country by another ; we are talking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said, effectively about a civil war. It is all too easy to be heroic with the lives of other people.

    Those who talk glibly about bombing from the air should consider the risk of retaliation to our troops who are, at present, delivering humanitarian aid. Those who go further and talk about putting ground forces in should realise that, were the circumstances necessary and we and others did so, we would be committing those troops to a very long and bloody fight with the absolute certainty of serious casualties. If we have not put in troops, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly thinks we might have done, it is not out of neglect ; it is out of our judgment of what is best, what is feasible and what is responsible.

    Mr. Watts : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our European Community partners understand clearly that any attempt to interfere with the rebate of Britain’s excessive contributions to the EC budget would have a dramatic effect on his ability to secure a smooth passage for the Maastricht Bill through the House?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my hon. Friend has just made his own point in an inimitable fashion, and I note it. I am grateful for what he had to say.

    The abatement, which is worth about £12 billion to the United Kingdom so far, ensures that we pay only our fair share to the Community budget. I have to say that there is no justification whatever for reducing that rebate, and we shall not agree to reduce it at Edinburgh. On most issues at Edinburgh, there may be room for negotiation. On this issue, there is no room whatever for negotiation.

     

    Q3. Mr. Burden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Burden : Is the Prime Minister aware that this year more than 2,500 jobs have been lost in manufacturing in my city of Birmingham, and that, every working day that he has been Prime Minister, 750 manufacturing jobs have been lost? Given the virtual vote of no confidence which the Engineering Employers Federation gave to the President of the Board of Trade last week, when will he start listening to what the manufacturing industry is saying?

    The Prime Minister : I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the “Autumn Statement”. He obviously missed it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Conway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moment ago.

    Mr. Conway : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of this country never wanted to celebrate the Marxist anniversary of May day? Given the new spirit of European co-operation, will my right hon. Friend consider replacing the May day bank holiday with a bank holiday to mark the anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar, the battle of Agincourt or, better still, the battle of Waterloo?

    The Prime Minister : I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for removing the May day bank holiday in precisely the same way in which are seeing the removal of the political system that it supports. Perhaps Trafalgar day would be appropriate ; perhaps other days, but certainly not May day.

    Mr. Hattersley : Which does the Prime Minister think would most increase the choices available to a poor family–all the charters that he has announced, some of which he relaunched this morning, or £10 a week more on child benefit?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should realise that many people in this country want to ensure that they get a better quality of public service than they have had in the past. We are determined under the charter programme to ensure that they get that better quality of service. I find it astonishing that the Labour party talks about public service, but does nothing in reality to ensure that people receive it.

    Mr. Streeter : Does my right hon. Friend agree that competitive tendering has brought real improvement and value for money where it has been introduced in local authority services? Does he, like me, welcome the fact that compulsory competitive tendering is to be introduced into housing management?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree that competitive tendering has produced substantial cost savings so far, and will no doubt continue to do so in future. It has done so with the same or improved standards of performance. I welcome the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to housing management–it is a little overdue, but now it is there, I very much welcome it.

     

    Q5. Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

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

    Mr. Pike : Does the Prime Minister recognise that the main underlying message of the churches lobby on housing this week was that, despite the slight change of direction announced in the autumn statement, that has only touched the surface of the many housing problems created as a result of Government policies during the past 14 years? Will the Government make more resources available to tackle the problems, reduce unemployment, improve the market sector and improve the British economy?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know, the plans that the Government have announced enable them to meet the manifesto pledge of 153,000 new homes. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the housing market should benefit significantly from the extra £750 million set aside to reduce the overhang of empty properties. That should provide another 20,000 properties for the public sector. The reduction in interest rates will help both the public and private sectors.

  • PMQT – 19 November 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Pike : Does the Prime Minister recognise that urban programme authorities, such as Burnley, which have been designated programme authorities because of deprivation, on the Government’s own criteria, are devastated by the axing of the urban programme? That has brought despair and despondency to those areas. Will the Prime Minister now guarantee that those deprived areas will get more resources, not less, as a result of the change in Government policy?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is probably overlooking, first, the impact of city challenge, secondly, the impact of the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and, thirdly, the fact that the urban programme has not been cancelled. Some £176 million will be available in 1993-94.

    Mr. Riddick : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following yesterday’s publication of school league tables, there can be no turning back on providing extra information to parents about their schools? Did my right hon. Friend notice that while the Labour party and the education establishment mafia were opposing the league tables, parents throughout the country were jamming the switchboard of the Department for Education demanding copies of those very league tables?

    The Prime Minister : It is indeed the case that the education service will never again be able to hide this important information. I hope that hon. Members of all parties will agree that this is information which should legitimately be available to parents, is now available to parents, and should continue to be available to parents.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister none the less explain why his Government are so incompetent that they cannot even produce an accurate record of the examination results?

    The Prime Minister : That is a bit rich coming from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls his infamous Jennifer’s ear broadcast not long ago, he will recall that the day after that, the Labour party’s dossier of people it claimed had to wait for treatment was wholly wrong. Out of 10 people it listed, five were wrong.

    Mr. John Smith : To return to the subject, can the Prime Minister explain why in the case of Manchester high school, which had a 100 per cent. pass, the figure was recorded as 16 per cent. and in the case of Holyrood comprehensive school in Chard, a 46 per cent. pass was recorded as 6 per cent? In both cases the schools contacted the Department to correct the misleading information that they thought was likely to be published. Why cannot the Department for Education perform the simple task of recording and transmitting information?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to hide the fact that he and his party want a cover-up on these statistics- – [Interruption.] If there are errors in the statistics, the Department will correct them. The main point is that it is right to give this information to parents and astonishing that the Labour party should wish to hide this information from parents– [Interruption.] —

    Madam Speaker : Order. Members must come to order instead of bawling and shouting all the time like this.– [Interruption.] –Order. Ministers must be heard in the House, as must every other Member. I call the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful, Madam Speaker. It would be interesting to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with this morning’s Guardian, which said :

    “What’s new is that parents have more information than they had before. No democrat should regard this as a reverse. This will allow a more informed choice.”

    Is Labour against more choice and more information?

    Mr. John Smith : We favour, above all, the provision of accurate rather than dogma-ridden information. When the Prime Minister is engaged in the task of correcting the errors, will he look at the case of Cambridgeshire, where, according to the county council, there have been 53 errors affecting at least 30 schools? Why does the Prime Minister not admit that the Government have made a botch of this, take it away and start again, this time trying to reach the minimum competence levels which even this Government should be able to attain?

    The Prime Minister : I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledges that we shall continue to provide this information, and next year we shall go further with the information. This is the biggest exercise of its kind ever undertaken by a Government : a quarter of a million statistics in one complete set of tables. Every school had a chance to check its figures. In addition, some complaints may have originated in the information wrongly presented in the media, based on our figures–[Hon. Members :– “Oh!”] It is hardly surprising that there are some errors.

    We shall correct them. Next year– [Interruption.] Hon. Members had better listen, because this is what they will get next year : extra information ; national curriculum results in English, maths, science and technology, routes taken by pupils at age 16 ; truancy rates ; and examination results. They will also get the first primary school tables giving national curriculum results for pupils aged seven. That is the information which the Opposition would hide and we shall provide.

    Mr. Butcher : I commend to the attention of my right hon. Friend an article in the current issue of the Fabian reviews in which it is argued that selective education should be reintroduced and that our secondary schools should be reformed on the German model of vocational and academic education. If this is now a legitimate subject of interest for the more enlightened socialists, why are our own Ministers so coy about reintroducing grammar schools?

    The Prime Minister : The main thing that we are concerned with is the highest quality of education across the whole of the public sector. That is what we are seeking to provide, together with the greater spread of information. With regard to what my hon. Friend has to say about the socialist party, he must speak for them in so far as he wishes to do so–I certainly would not wish to do so.

    Leaving aside for the moment the 180 refugees for whom Austria has provided refuge because Britain would not, may I again remind the Prime Minister of the more than 6,500 innocent civilians without adequate refuge, trapped in Serbian prison compounds, their lives threatened imminently by starvation and cold because no third country will have them? Does the Prime Minister realise that they are there, at least in part, because of his failure as President of the European Community to provide a co-ordinated European plan for Yugoslav refugees? Why?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman knows that this country has taken the lead in most of the initiatives dealing with Yugoslavia in recent months. We have welcomed more than 40,000 visitors, of whom 4,000 have applied for asylum. This country has shown great generosity and will continue to do so, but we share the view of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that help should be provided as close as possible to people’s homes, and not by taking them abroad when that is not absolutely necessary. That is the policy which we have been following and the policy which I believe it is right for us to follow.

    Mr. Dunn : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the publication of league tables for local schools is entirely responsible? Is he also aware that the reason why certain parties in the House object to the publication of information for parents is that it brings into the open the mediocrity introduced into our schools by the left in the 1960s?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend–and, more to the point, so do parents up and down the country, who know very well where the bad education authorities are. The Labour party has tried to block every one of our education reforms, so it is hardly surprising that it is now trying to block information.

     

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

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

    Mr. Hall : Is the Prime Minister aware that the ICI chlora-alkali factory in Runcorn has experienced a 60 per cent. increase in its electricity bills in the past 18 months? Unless it can negotiate a more realistic price for its electricity, or benefit from bulk purchasing, it will go out of business–putting 4,000 people in Runcorn out of work. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment that he will intervene on behalf of jobs in British industry and ensure that ICI is treated fairly in this matter?

    The Prime Minister : I cannot intervene in the way in which the hon. Gentleman invites me to, and it would not be right for me to do so.

    Mr. Ian Bruce : Will the Prime Minister find time in his busy schedule to visit Portland to speak to those running the naval base there and, in particular, to examine sea training? It is not planned to reduce sea training, but simply to move it to Devonport. Is not the best place to undertake such training the place where it has always been undertaken– Portland?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend knows of the decision, which has been taken after careful examination. I am not able to announce any change in that decision this afternoon. I am, of course, perfectly happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.

     

    Q3. Mr. Ernie Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

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

    Mr. Ross : Following the announcement today that 3,500 jobs are to go at the Royal Bank of Scotland and 550 at Blue Circle cement, does the Prime Minister realise that while unemployment continues to soar out of control no one will have any confidence in him or in the economy? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that he has not a clue what to do about unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : Given that the hon. Gentleman supports a party which wanted a tax on jobs, all the burdens of the social charter and a national minimum wage, I find his remarks a bit rich. It is odd that the hon. Gentleman did not notice the reductions in interest rates, the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week, or the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment over many months. Where has the hon. Gentleman been during all this time?

    Mrs. Gillan : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating a company in my constituency–Amersham International–on winning the Queen’s award for industry for its brain-imaging agent, ceretec? The company leads the world in the field. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is further evidence of the success of the Government’s privatisation policy?

    The Prime Minister : I most certainly agree with my hon. Friend. It is a fact that most of the industries that have been privatised have had a substantially better record in the private sector than they had in the public sector. That is why it is entirely right for us, wherever we can, to look to move enterprises from the public to the private sector, where they can be run by business men, run for profit, and provide secure, long-term, permanent employment.

     

    Q4. Mr. Ronnie Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

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

    Mr. Campbell : On 16 November the Prime Minister wrote a letter to the National Union of Mineworkers saying that the 10 pits in the review would have to close because they were not making a profit. [Interruption.] I am not reading. Is the Prime Minister aware that five of those collieries are currently making a profit and two of them are expected to make a profit at the end of the financial year? Who is telling the truth in the matter–the Coal Board or the Prime Minister? The pits are to close–yet they are making a profit. Does the Prime Minister not want to keep the pits open because he would tarnish his reputation again?

    The Prime Minister : The Government are seeking to ensure that we can have a coal industry in the future which is sustainable, profitable and viable. That is in the interests of the coal industry, in the interests of energy users and in the interests of the local communities–and it is what the Government wish to see.

  • PMQT – 27 October 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Watson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Watson : As the Prime Minister bobbles about helplessly in a sea of chaos, has he noticed the latest damning evidence of economic decline in today’s Confederation of British Industry review, yet one of last week’s U- turns–just one of them–promised economic growth? Before he finally slips beneath the surface, will the Prime Minister tell us what, if anything, he will do to prevent recession from turning into slump?

    The Prime Minister : In the time that he spent preparing that question, the hon. Gentleman clearly did not read all of the CBI quarterly survey. If he had done, he would have seen output expectations up on September, export optimism up on July, the domestic prices balance at an all-time low and, for the first time ever, the balance of firms reporting unit costs actually being reduced. As to improving economic circumstances, the hon. Gentleman should note what has been done. Interest rates have been cut 11 times in two years. They are the lowest interest rates in Europe, and British firms also face the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe.

    Mr. William Powell : My right hon. Friend will be aware of how welcome the declaration of the London summit on the conference on Yugoslavia was in relation to the war crimes that are taking place in Yugoslavia and also the subsequent action taking place at the United Nations. Unfortunately, of course, there is no permanent machinery for trying war crimes, although the General Assembly of the United Nations has been discussing such permanent machinery. Will my right hon. Friend encourage his colleagues in the Government to take a more constructive approach towards establishing such permanent machinery?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly content to give my hon. Friend that assurance. This was a matter that was raised at the London summit on Yugoslavia some time ago, and as a result of that, the whole matter is being examined in the United Nations.

    Mr. John Smith : Could the Prime Minister explain how he takes comfort from a CBI survey which predicts that jobs will be down, output will be down, orders will be down, investment will be down and confidence will be down? Will he answer the question that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson)? What action will he take to stop a slump?

    The Prime Minister : For the second successive Question Time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to listen to an answer already given. If he had listened more carefully he would have heard what I said about output expectations, export optimism, the domestic prices balance and the balance of firms reporting unit costs actually falling. He would also know that manufacturing output has risen in each of the first two quarters, that car production was up sharply in September, and that retail sales have been up in both the second and third quarters.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that the complacency of that answer will shock the public? Does he not realise that the British public are now sick and tired of failed economic policies as well as bogus economic promises of recovery which are never ever fulfilled?

    The Prime Minister : Throughout the last three years the economic policy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been the same as ours, but 1 per cent. less off interest rates. Exactly the same. His commitment to the central part of our economic policy was total and frequently stated. He always wanted lower interest rates. Will he now bear it in mind that we have the lowest interest rates in the European Economic Community–lower than we have had for a long time–and that there is no economic policy whatever from the Opposition?

    Sir James Kilfedder : May I, as one who voted against the Government in the crucial Division last week on the pit closures and was opposed by a Tory candidate in the general election, from my critical position of independence congratulate the Prime Minister on the brave determination that he has shown–history will commend him for it–to put the United Kingdom at the heart of Europe? Will he take the opportunity as often as possible to spell out in simple terms to the people of this country the consequences, particularly for jobs, if Britain is left on the sidelines of Europe?

    The Prime Minister : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has had to say. Let me say this on the European Community and the Government’s policy. I believe that we have had three historic mistakes over the last 30 years in European policy. [Interruption.] The first was when we failed to join the Community at the outset. The second was when twice other countries refused to accept Britain into the European Community. They were mistakes of great damage, to not just this country but the whole of the European Community. Today, with the possibility of enlargement through the changing policies in Europe, we have more of a chance than ever we have had before of building a European Community in the image that we in this country wish to see. It would be folly at this stage to throw that away by isolating ourselves in the Community and by ending our influence. That is the way that the sort of Community we do not wish to see–not the sort of Community that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been fighting for for some years–comes about.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister not realise that the terrible damage done to his credibility and that of his Government by his foolish manoeuvrings over the last week have undermined the case for Europe, for which there is a majority in the House, as well as delaying the chance of recovery, for which there is such desperate need in the nation?

    The Prime Minister : What undermines the case for Europe is the manoeuvrings of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) as well as the manoeuvrings of the right hon. Gentleman himself.

    Mr. Roger Evans : Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that legislation will be introduced at an early date to strengthen the law against the curse of new-age travellers?

    The Prime Minister : There seems to be some competition for legislation to be introduced in the House. We are examining the particular difficulties created by new-age travellers, and I hope that at the end of that examination we will be able to produce legislation to protect those who suffer from their activities.

     

    Q2. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Mr. Illsley : The Prime Minister will recall that last Wednesday members of his Government said that there would be a meaningful, genuine, statutory 90-day review of the 10 collieries earmarked for closure. Bearing in mind the fact that there is no such thing as a statutory 90-day review, and that most of those collieries are now closed, does the Prime Minister accept that the House was apparently misled?

    The Prime Minister : I shall reiterate to the hon. Gentleman what I said myself on the subject of the 10 pits. I made it perfectly clear then that the 10 pits that have no economic future will go through the full statutory review procedure. I made it equally clear that the Government would co-operate with the inquiry by the Trade and Industry Select Committee and that the President of the Board of Trade will give evidence if that is required.

    Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will never allow the EC to impose on us by the back door the social chapter that the Labour party would impose on us by the front door? Will he also confirm that he will fight for British interests and jobs in Euope, as he has always done?

    The Prime Minister : I can most certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Before I went to the negotiations on the Maastricht treaty I indicated to the House that I would not come back having accepted a single currency being imposed on this House, and equally, that I would not accept the social chapter. I honoured both of those commitments and I propose to keep to them.

     

    Q3. Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Mr. Barnes : A sales manager of British Coal, Alan Aitken, has told customers that supplies will be supplemented by imports during the period of the pit closures. This is a disgrace. How much will be added to these imports by the agreement that the Prime Minister made with the Colombian authorities about the importation from that country of coal that is produced with the help of child labour?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is clearly reading the wrong articles, for what he has had to say is rubbish. I made no offer to stop British Coal’s anti-dumping complaint. Nor did I in any way reach the sort of agreement that the hon. Gentleman suggests with the Colombian authorities–not at any stage. Since I spend a lot of my time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, seeking an agreement on GATT, it is hardly likely that I would support dumping.

     

    Q4. Mrs. Angela Knight : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Mrs. Knight : Does my right hon. Friend agree that not even the French farmers would benefit from a world trade war? Will he confirm that he will continue to pursue an early conclusion of the GATT round, which will be good for developing countries, good for Britain–including companies in my constituency of Erewash–and even good for France?

    The Prime Minister : I can most certainly confirm that. The reality is that everybody would lose out from a trade war, including France and everybody who lives in France. In the last few days I have been in touch with the Americans and with leaders throughout the European Community to urge an early resumption of talks between the Community and the United States, both on a GATT agreement and on ending the dispute about oil seeds. I am glad to say that the two sides are in touch again and the United States is holding off from taking trade retaliation. We must seek an agreement both to end the dispute over oil seeds and a comprehensive agreement on the Uruguay round as speedily as possible. On the substantive point of my hon. Friend’s question about benefits, it would produce £120 billion worth of extra world output were we to have a successful GATT outcome.

    Mr. Cunliffe : Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that he may be out next week on 90 days’ notice, without statutory review? Will he bear with me while I relate to him the humiliating experience, which is causing great distress, that miners at Parkside colliery suffered on Friday? They were told to report to the pit every day for 90 days but that they were forbidden to go down the mine. Will the Prime Minister condemn this unspeakable behaviour and have words about it with the chairman of British Coal?

    The Prime Minister : I shall examine the case that the hon. Gentleman sets out and I shall see for myself what the facts are.

     

    Q5. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

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

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) should not behave in that way.

    Mr. Amess : Is my right hon. Friend aware that mortgage interest rates for first-time buyers are now at their lowest level for 25 years? Does he agree that that will have the effect of putting more money in people’s pockets so that they can spend it on goods in the high street and thereby help our economic recovery? Does he further agree that that is very good news for home buyers throughout the country and particularly for my constituents in Basildon?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has the most famous constituents in the western world and I can confirm that the very substantial reductions in mortgage rates will help them a great deal. It will also make a significant difference to the amount of money available for high street purchases, though of course the central point is that each 1 per cent. off interest rates is worth £1 billion a year to industry, and that is vital for investment, for future prosperity and for jobs.

    Dr. Kim Howells : Can the Prime Minister confirm that doubts about the future of the hugely important Al Yamamah defence deal, which the British Government have signed with the Saudis, increase day by day and parallel the decline in the influence of his predecessor, Baroness Thatcher? Will he confirm that interest in that deal increases as it looks as though his predecessor may be making a comeback, along with that grease-palming son of hers [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. [Interruption.] We want a question from the hon. Member.

    Dr. Howells : That was my question, Madam Speaker.

    The Prime Minister : I refute the hon. Gentleman’s distasteful remarks about my noble Friend. As for the Al Yamamah contract, there is no doubt that the Saudi commitment to Al Yamamah remains as strong as it has been for many years. That has been stressed to the Secretary of State for Defence and directly to me by the king.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 October 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister what is the total, to date, of the financial assistance given by Her Majesty’s Government to fund the cost of maintaining refugees from the former states of Yugoslavia; what is the total, to date, of financial assistance given by Her Majesty’s Government to fund humanitarian relief in the former states of Yugoslavia; and what proposals Her Majesty’s Government have for increasing the United Kingdom contribution.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 October 1992] : I announced yesterday an additional bilateral British contribution of £15 million in the light of reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This brings Britain’s total commitment of humanitarian aid for victims of the conflict in former Yugoslavia to over £70 million; of this, £29.5 million is bilateral aid and £41 million our share of European Community actions.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Birmingham European Council – 20 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement in the House of Commons on the Birmingham European Council, made on 20th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Birmingham on Friday last. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the United Kingdom.

    I should like to thank the city of Birmingham, its leaders and its people– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I know that hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber have business elsewhere in the House. Will they leave quietly so that we can hear what the Prime Minister has to say?

    The Prime Minister : I should like to thank the city of Birmingham, its leaders and its people for the effectiveness and speed of their organisation of the European summit.

    Following the events in the financial markets a month ago, a number of EC member states asked for this meeting to help to restore confidence throughout the Community and to address the issues raised by the market turbulence. Amongst those concerns, clearly evident in the referendums in Denmark and France, was the unease that too many decisions were being taken centrally in Brussels. The summit conclusions on these and other issues are in the Library of the House.

    Let me deal first with economic and monetary co-operation. At Friday’s meeting we reaffirmed our commitment to pursue open market policies, to control budget deficits, and to reduce inflation. It was unanimously agreed that these are the basis for recovery and for the creation of new and lasting jobs here and in the Community as a whole.

    The European Council also reaffirmed the necessity of the work set in hand by Finance Ministers after the recent turmoil in the currency markets. It was agreed that the work will involve Finance Ministers, the Monetary Committee, Central Bank governors and the Commission. It will cover recent economic and financial developments in Europe and the implications of changes in the economic environment in recent years. In particular, it will look at the impact of the increasing size and sophistication of financial markets and greater capital liberalisation.

    One critical discussion concerned the negotiations for a general agreement on tariffs and trade Uruguay round settlement. Over the past two weeks, significant progress had been made between the Commission and the United States in all sectors of the negotiation. I asked Commissioner Andriessen to report to the European Council. At the end of our discussion, the Commission was given the authority to continue to negotiate with the intention of reaching a satisfactory conclusion within the next 10 weeks. Subsequently, further useful progress was made in talks in Canada over the weekend. A GATT settlement would make a vital contribution to recovery and would be very much in Britain’s interest. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, it would lead to an extra $200 billion in annual world output.

    In the Birmingham declaration we also took significant steps towards bringing the Community closer to ordinary people. The declaration agreed at Birmingham has a number of distinct elements. It recognises the importance of national identity. It acknowledges that the Community can act only where member states have given it the power to do so in the treaties. It lays down that action at the Community level should happen only when necessary. It calls for new guidelines, so that when Community action is taken it takes the lightest possible form. It introduces better consultation by the Commission before proposals are brought forward. It calls for a greater role for national Parliaments in the work of the Community.

    The declaration provides, for the first time, a proper framework for the practical definition and implementation of subsidiarity. We agreed that, at the Edinburgh European Council in two months’ time, we must make a reality of that principle. All members of the European Council agreed to take decisions at Edinburgh to make subsidiarity an integral part of future EC decision making. That change of attitude by the Council and the Commission is as important as the procedures and criteria to be introduced.

    Prime Minister Schluter of Denmark reported to the European Council on the present state of discussion on the Maastricht treaty within Denmark. The Danish Government have published a White Paper and will produce specific ideas shortly. It remains their aim to ratify the treaty, and we plan to set in place at Edinburgh the framework that will allow them to do so.

    The Birmingham Council also gave us an opportunity to review our action to relieve suffering in Somalia and Yugoslavia. The Community has given a lead in both countries. In Somalia we called for an immediate ceasefire to allow for the rapid deployment of United Nations troops and for the distribution of aid and agreed to try to expedite these deployments.

    In Yugoslavia, at British initiative, a Community humanitarian force will be established. It will support the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in delivering humanitarian aid. The Community will speed up aid already pledged, which includes 120,000 tonnes of food. We have invited the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to hold a meeting of experts as soon as possible to make sure that that aid gets through without delay. There will be a follow-up meeting in a few weeks’ time to ensure that effective action is being taken. Member states also pledged further staff and resources to strengthen the UNHCR effort. I can today announce a further £15 million of bilateral aid to provide 22 more trucks, 10 Land Rovers, shelter, medical supplies and personnel. Deliveries will start very shortly.

    A confident and successful Community is a vital interest of this country. Sixty per cent. of our visible trade is with the Community. Much of our external investment comes from the Community. Eight of our top 10 trading partners are in the Community. With less than three months to go to the completion of the single market, which could raise Community output by more than 4 per cent., it was vital to re-establish confidence in the interests of stability, recovery, growth and jobs in all our countries. The Birmingham European Council did precisely that.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the London Conference – 26 August 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made at the London Conference on Wednesday 26th August 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    May I firstly welcome you all to the London Conference, a conference sponsored jointly by the United Nations and the European Community. I think no explanation is necessary to the people present today as to why we are here or to the size of the problem that lies before us. What we are hoping from this conference is that it will prove to be a decisive turning point, that it will mark a decisive new phase in the search for the peace in the former Yugoslavia territories that all of us wish to see.

    What I fear we can see daily as we look around is the tragedy of Yugoslavia unfolding and throughout the world all our fellow citizens in each of our individual countries have seen the waste, the despair and the growing danger of the continuing conflict in Yugoslavia.

    In this room are the people who can stop this war, end the bloodshed, reach a lasting settlement. I do not believe that world opinion will readily forgive anyone who impedes that work over the next couple of days and beyond.

    The people that we represent at this conference have been appalled by the destruction, the killing, the maiming and the sheer cruelty which has disfigured the former Yugoslavia. We all seek a just peace and against that background it seemed to the Secretary General and to me that the United Nations and the European Community should join together in holding this conference.

    Fortunately, we will not be beginning our work from scratch. The European Community has given monitors and sponsored a peace conference. Lord Carrington, to whom I pay a very warm and very well deserved tribute, has made substantial progress and we should build on that. The United Nations has passed resolutions bringing in an arms embargo on Serbia and Montenegro. Ten days ago the Security Council agreed that all necessary measures could be used to deliver humanitarian aid. The UN agencies have supplied and distributed emergency aid and cared for refugees and individual countries, many represented here today, have contributed too, often by taking in large numbers of refugees.

    But I think we have all felt that the time has come to broaden and to intensify our work. And let me suggest to you, as co-Chairman, how I believe we should tackle that task.

    Firstly, humanitarian help. Even if peace were achieved tomorrow, hundreds of thousands of people would still be involved in hunger, sickness, desperation, and those problems are bound to worsen as winter approaches.

    The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that some two and a half million people remain in the former Yugoslavia and over one and a quarter million of these will depend on outside help with shelter, food and medicines to see them through the coming winter. Without that help many of that 1.3 million may not survive. And this is not a natural disaster we are dealing with, it is a man-made disaster and it needs a man-made solution and this conference can make its contribution to that.

    We must ensure that humanitarian supplies are distributed to the victims of this conflict, particularly those victims still trapped in the war zones in Bosnia. I believe that the humanitarian agencies have done an outstanding job, they have put their lives on the line to assist in the survival of others. The Security Council Resolution 770 is a guarantee the international community have given that we will not leave the United Nations and its agencies without help and protection in the task they have overtaken.

    It cannot be done by force but it must be done in safety. And that is why my country and others are willing to provide armed escorts to help the relief convoys on their missions of mercy. We have no hostile intent to any party in Bosnia, but I have to say to the conference that we will not be deflected from our determination to deliver aid wherever it is needed.

    And thirdly, therefore, we must work for peace with justice with as much energy as we relieve those already suffering from war as a result of injustice. It is clear that we need a peace process and that this should be coupled with the necessary international pressure to bring success.

    That peace process is vital but it must be based, I believe, on certain fundamental principles. The first is that frontiers cannot be altered by force, the international community will not accept that Bosnia can be partitioned by conquest. Those who suppose they can secure international acceptance of military advantages gained by force are mistaken in that judgment.

    The second principle is that within those fixed frontiers minorities are entitled to full protection and respect to their civil rights, this applies universally whether in Bosnia, Croatia or Serbia. And those two principles go together, neither can be effective without the other.

    And so the principles and how we hope to achieve them are set out in the two key documents which I hope the conference will adopt. The statement of principles sets out the basic international standards which must govern a settlement, I cannot believe after further discussion that any of us here will not be able and prepared to subscribe to it.

    But what counts of course is not just the acceptance of those principles but the subsequent application of those principles and they are in reality not being completely fulfilled by any of the main parties to the crisis at present.

    We must therefore help the parties to come closer to doing so and that is the purpose of the work set out in the action programme. This conference will remain in being and will remain active. Its work will be handled in partnership by the United Nations and the Presidency of the European Community and in addition we urgently need a high level international task group to tackle each main problem that we face. Those task groups will build on the work already done by the European Community peace conference and the United Nations. They must then get down to work energetically and unremittingly on the problems they have been set and we must also strive for further practical progress during the conference on various key questions – humanitarian issues, confidence-building measures and the implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions.

    We shall also be looking tomorrow at two further documents. These are the draft statements, one on Serbia, one on Bosnia. I hope that all parties will be able to adopt them. Like the statement of principles, they should be uncontentious. We believe, for example, that they are consistent with Mr Panic’s recent letter to the United Nations Security Council which struck a note of realism and of moderation.

    It is essential that this is followed up in deeds as well as in words and if all the Yugoslav parties at this conference, including Serbia, are prepared to subscribe to the draft statements this will be an encouraging sign. And if not, if not, the world will be entitled to doubt the goodwill of those who stand out against it and to draw the appropriate conclusions.

    What are those conclusions? Those conclusions must mean bringing pressure to bear on governments or factions which do not abide by those principles. That in turn means sanctions. We need to enforce them more effectively and if necessary intensify them and that will be an inevitable issue at this conference and perhaps beyond it too.

    No-one should under-estimate the anguish that is felt around the world at the events that unfold daily. The different former Yugoslav delegations, and in particular I think those from Serbia and Montenegro, must ask themselves this question: Do you wish to be considered as part of Europe? Do you wish to belong to the world community? If so, good, but that does mean accepting the standards of the rest of Europe and of the world community.

    In this conference and beyond it we are ready to work with the republics of the former Yugoslavia to settle the final new constitutional arrangements in accordance with the principles set out. Our aim is to take into account the legitimate interests of all parties. Parties who choose to ignore settlement by negotiation will find no support from other governments or international organisations. All the countries and organisations who have a role to play are represented here today at this conference. They will all set out their own view but I believe there is a common determination.

    For those who accept negotiation, and that means a willingness to make concessions and a genuine desire to find compromises, we have everything to offer. We will speed up your integration into the international community, we will begin with reconstruction aid, we will offer economic help through trade agreements, through export credits, through a full partnership in Europe. But if we do not get cooperation, the pressure will inexorably increase, condemnation, isolation, parties who stand in the way of agreement can expect even tougher sanctions, even more rigorously policed. No trade, no aid, no international recognition or role. Economic, cultural, political and diplomatic isolation. Those are the choices.

    So I see our task at this conference as ensuring humanitarian help, restoring respect for human rights and setting in hand a process which will lead to a just and enduring peace by agreeing on the necessary principles, on the pressures needed to put those principles into effect, and on the intensive programme of work needed to bring our process to success.

    That is what lies ahead of us at this conference and in the continuing work that may follow it. This I hope will prove to be a decisive break towards peace in the former Yugoslavia and that, I hope, is why everyone who is here has chosen to attend.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Former Yugoslavia – 7 August 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep comments made on the former Yugoslavia on 7th August 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have been looking at a whole series of options over the last few days. They clearly need very careful consideration. They need a good deal of consultation with our allies.

    I think there’s nothing more I can say about that at the moment, but clearly everyone who saw that will be disturbed. It’s a very disturbing report.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on Yugoslavia – 7 August 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on the situation in Yugoslavia, made in Barcelona on 7th August 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In recent days there has been growing evidence of human rights abuses at the camps in Bosnia. I think everyone who has seen or learnt about those issues will be shocked. It is perfectly clear that those abuses have to be stopped and have to be stopped speedily.

    I believe the first thing that is necessary is to have independent observers in those camps, with full access, without delay. The moment they are there we must move further and make sure that those camps come under international and independent supervision. We will be promoting a resolution in the Security Council to his effect and promoting that resolution very speedily.

    I believe there are two other things that follow. We need to pull together internationally all the evidence that different nations have of abuses so that those responsible for those abuses can be caught, can be tried and can then be brought to book. And of course, in addition to that, it is necessary for us to continue with the Security Council resolutions to protect the humanitarian supplies that are presently going into Sarajevo and elsewhere. It is essential that those continue.

  • PMQT – 14 July 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Bowis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Bowis : Does my right hon. Friend agree that some people have still not learnt the lesson that real and lasting growth can come only with an economy that is based on low taxation and low inflation? Is not that the reason why last week’s figures were so good? Will my right hon. Friend keep at it and ensure that his election pledge to lick inflation is fulfilled?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. I want to ensure that our record on inflation in the 1990s exceeds that of the 1980s, that we get inflation down to the lowest possible level and that we keep it there. Economic policy is geared to that end.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister recall his promise in the election that a Tory victory would provide the spark to ignite recovery? Will the Prime Minister now admit that no such ignition has taken place and that there will be no real recovery as long as he continues with the policies that have already brought us two full years of recession?

    The Prime Minister : I shall turn to the right hon. Gentleman’s point in a moment, if I may, for this is the last occasion that we will be able to exchange comments over the Dispatch Box in this fashion. We have done so on many occasions in the past 20 months. We have often disagreed, sometimes we have agreed, but I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman–[Hon. Members :– He’s going to resign.”] That is quite wrong; I am staying.

    I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support at times of crisis, for his strong support throughout the Gulf war and for the support that he has given us throughout the difficulties in Yugoslavia. On many occasions when he and I have had to deal privately with matters, without exception he has respected the confidences of those occasions. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to thank him for that and to do so publicly and with warmth.

    In direct response to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, he will know the view of the OECD and of the London business school, both of whose latest surveys forecast that recovery will be under way from the second quarter of this year. We share that view.

    Mr. Kinnock : I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his kind remarks. I consider it a great honour to have been able to serve my country in the way that I could. I know that he shares that vocation, and I hope that the country and its people can achieve greater success in the future.

    I put it to the Prime Minister that his strategy of perpetuating recession, combined with high unemployment, in an attempt to suppress inflation, has all the features of the slump of the 1930s. For the sake of our country, I put it to him that he should now recognise that continuation of those policies will not achieve durable or sustainable recovery, and will certainly not put our country at ease with itself.

    The Prime Minister : I respect the view that the right hon. Gentleman expresses, but I say in all sincerity that I cannot agree with him. The recovery–the jobs, the prosperity and the security–that everyone in this House wants for all our citizens can be based only on sustainable growth and low inflation. Unless we have low inflation as a base, we shall not get a form of growth that is sustainable. I realise that it is not easy, that it is uncomfortable and that it is frustrating when growth does not appear immediately, but I know of no other way to ensure the medium and long-term growth and prosperity of the nation, and I am determined to stick to the policies that I believe to be in our medium and long-term interests.

    Mr. Kinnock : May I say to the Prime Minister, with equal sincerity, that, after two years of recession, there is a very great danger that continuation of the present policies will risk driving the economy down so far as to make the prospect of recovery recede by years. I hope that the Prime Minister will use this summer to think again about the course of that policy and will adopt different policies that can give this country and its people the chance of jobs, growth and success, which we have not enjoyed in the immediate past.

    The Prime Minister : The Leader of the Opposition and I agree about what the objective is, but I regret that we do not agree about the basis that is necessary to achieve it. One needs to look at what is happening. The volume of exports was at a record level in May ; our volume share of world trade has recovered, after being in decline for many years ; car sales are increasing ; producer price inflation is at a very low level indeed. The ingredients are there. I return to the independent view of both the OECD and the London business school that recovery will be under way in the second half of this year. And it will be recovery based on a rate of inflation that is far lower than anyone in this House predicted 18 months ago. It is from that base that we shall get the growth that we all wish to see.

    Sir Michael Marshall : In a week that marks the 75th birthday of the British space pioneer Arthur C. Clarke and his visit to the House of Commons will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of assuring the House that during our presidency of the EC Her Majesty’s Government will make every effort to take initiatives in the space field to improve the quality of life and assist British industry?

    The Prime Minister : I think I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I welcome the visit of Mr. Clarke to the House. We shall continue to take initiatives, within Europe, internationally and in other forums, in pursuit of space priorities. We are particularly interested in the development of Earth observation systems for the monitoring of the environment and of climate change.

     

    Q2. Mr. John D. Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

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

    Mr. Taylor : May I take this opportunity to register the thanks of the Ulster Unionist party to the Leader of the main Opposition party for the leadership he has given to Her Majesty’s Opposition. It has been a privilege to work with him in recent years.

    Now that the inter-party talks on Northern Ireland have advanced to strands 2 and 3, in which Her Majesty’s Government are no longer in the chair but are equal partners with the other participants, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he recognises that progress towards real understanding, recognition and mutual respect in the island of Ireland depends upon the removal of articles 2 and 3 from the constitution of the southern Irish republic? Will Her Majesty’s Government take the opportunity available to them in strands 2 and 3 to request the Dublin Government to remove their constitutional claim over that part of the United Kingdom known as Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that articles 2 and 3 are important ingredients in the progress that has to be made. I welcome the talks at Lancaster House last week and I look forward to further substantive talks in Belfast later this week. This is an historic opportunity. I have made that clear to the Taoiseach. I think that he shares that view. He was generous enough to do so in a joint message just a few days ago. It would not be helpful for anyone to say a great deal about the talks while they continue, not least because the participants have agreed on the vital importance of confidentiality. But the talks have gone further than many imagined. The position is more hopeful than it has been for many years. We must all hope that the talks can make further progress.

     

    Q3. Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

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

    Mr. Thompson : In the light of the harrowing plight of the children of Sarajevo, is there any immediate prospect of medical assistance being sent or provided to help with the terrible suffering which is occurring there?

    The Prime Minister : Some progress has been made this morning. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that a team of eight doctors and nurses from the South Manchester accident and rescue team is assembling its emergency supplies. Subject to the necessary clearance from the United Nations, which we expect to receive shortly, the team will fly out to Zagreb later today or tomorrow. It will link up with the United Nations and United Kingdom medical teams already in the area. It will be there both to offer immediate medical assistance as required and to report back to me with an on-the-spot assessment of the best way in which we can help those tragic children.

    Mr. Ashdown : In view of the Prime Minister’s previous statements, can he deny that unemployment will be at or through 3 million by Christmas?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, no Minister of any Government has made projections of unemployment. I do not intend to start. We shall have some more figures later this week. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own assessment.

    Mr. Alan Howarth : Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of the former leader of the Labour party that “inflation is the father and mother of unemployment”?

    Does he agree that inflation is a social as well as economic evil that has dogged this country for a generation? Does he accept that he has wide support in the country in his determination to seize the opportunity that we have now to defeat inflation decisively?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that my hon. Friend is right. I well recall the quotation that he uses. We have the headline rate of inflation down to 3.9 per cent. and the underlying rate of inflation effectively down to 4.8 per cent. Both are falling. That is very welcome news indeed.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cummings : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

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

    Mr. Cummings : Is the Prime Minister aware that tens of thousands of chronically sick and disabled people are awaiting the determination of their application for disability living allowance? Is he further aware that, following a period of 10 months, the family of a late constituent of mine received a determination two days after the lady died? What does the Prime Minister intend to do about that disgraceful state of affairs?

    The Prime Minister : We seek to process such applications as speedily as possible. The Benefits Agency is examining the difficulty and putting in staff to address it as speedily as possible.

     

    Q5. Mr. Devlin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

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

    Mr. Devlin : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great pride in the north-east of England that Britain is shortly to become once again a net exporter of cars? Is not that a tribute to both the motor industry in general, which has restructured in the past few years, and to the Government’s success in attracting inward investment to Britain?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I believe that the attraction of inward investment is very important. Among other things, it relies on very low inflation and stable economic policies which do not change and are well understood. There is no doubt that the British car industry has made excellent progress in improving competitiveness and significantly reducing the balance of payments deficit on trade in the automotive industry. In welcoming that, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of inward investment, most notably, in that instance, in the motor car industry from Japan.

    Mr. Turner : Is the Prime Minister aware that his notion of the freedom to choose is an empty gesture to millions of people in this country? When they have paid their electric, water and gas bills, they find that they have nothing left for the simple pleasures of life. When will he do something to help those people, instead of helping the better off whom his Government have always helped?

    The Prime Minister : I am not sure that that is the invariable view of people who would call themselves better off. Of course we are concerned to help people who find themselves in such difficulties, and our policies have done so consistently during the past 12 years. What the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends do not like is choice itself. That is why they did not want to sell council houses, why they did not want people to choose what schools they have, and why they do not like choice in health. The truth is that when people choose, they choose conservatism and not socialism.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Douglas Hurd in Helsinki – 10 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, in Helsinki on Friday 10th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    A year and a half ago at the Paris summit, all the countries present celebrated the end of communism and the re-emergence of many European democracies. We knew at that time, when that meeting took place, that a lot of ancient disputes, frozen by communism, suppression of national identity, would be likely to re-emerge. And events have shown that to be an entirely accurate judgment. Yugoslavia of course is the most vivid example but there are many others, including in the former Soviet Union. I have no doubt that other bushfires from time to time will break out as well.

    The CSCE played a central role in setting human rights standards which the communist world could not ignore. It would be very good to think in the post-communist world that with the re-emergence of democracy those standards would automatically apply. But we know that is not the case so the old role of the CSCE as a human rights monitor, particularly in respect of ethnic minorities, continues and becomes more important. But it has to take on a new role as well, a role as fire-fighter.

    At this meeting we have agreed a number of new roles for the CSCE, they cover the early warning of potential conflicts, a particularly important role I think; mechanisms to improve the peaceful settlement of disputes; the establishment of a High Commissioner for national minorities and of course a CSCE role in peace-keeping as well.

    I would not wish to make exaggerated claims for any of those developments and I think other people would be unwise to do so as well. The CSCE is a bit like the United Nations, but it does lack the sharp edge which the Security Council gives to the UN. It can only act by consensus, its effectiveness, therefore depends upon peer pressure, upon the pressure which a majority of nations in Europe can bring upon a minority, and ultimately upon the willingness of its members to use the mechanisms that are available to it. Again, Yugoslavia provides the most vivid example.

    One of the sub-plots in Yugoslavia has been whether the naval monitoring of sanctions in the Adriatic should be done by the Western European Union or jointly by NATO and the Western European Union. Agreement has been reached that it should be a joint operation. It is right for Europe to play a more prominent role in defence, but it would be dangerous and it would be foolish for any of us in Europe to try and exclude the United States and NATO from European defence operations.

    As at Lisbon, as at Munich, Yugoslavia has been high on the agenda and NATO and Western European Union Foreign and Defence Ministers have been meeting in the margins to discuss what more we can do. As of today HMS Avenger is to take part in the sanctions monitoring force. Our humanitarian airlift into Sarajevo continues. We are collectively looking at the feasibility of a land corridor to Sarajevo so that food can be supplied under United Nations auspices. If, if such an operation were feasible, Britain would be prepared to consider providing air cover for it but we would not be supplying ground troops.

    At the same time we must continue to support fully Lord Carrington’s efforts to bring the parties in Bosnia Herzegovina, and indeed in the other republics, closer to a political settlement in their own areas and of their own differences.

    The crucial responsibility here, and I emphasise that, the crucial responsibility here is with Lord Carrington, a fact which was underlined and endorsed by the Western European Union Foreign Ministers in their discussion earlier today.

    In my capacity as President of the European Community, I have had separate meetings here with Prime Minister Schluter of Denmark, the President and the Prime Minister of Finland and Prime Minister Bilt of Sweden. There will be further contacts with the Danish government over the coming weeks.

    With the Prime Ministers of Finland and Sweden I set out our plans for handling the preparations for enlargement of the Community. Although the official negotiations cannot start before Maastricht ratification is complete, there is a general willingness in the Community to complete as much of the business as possible behind the scenes before the ratification.

    I also have taken the opportunity of this visit here to have a meeting with Eduarde Shevardnadze of Georgia and with President Kravchuk of the Ukraine. It was my first meeting with President Kravchuk but not, of course, with Mr Shevardnadze for we were both Foreign Ministers at the same time, we were in touch during the coup in Moscow and have been so on many occasions in the past.

    So both in terms of the documentation that has been signed here and the bilateral contacts that I have been able to make during my visit here, it has been a worthwhile occasion and the Foreign Secretary and I will endeavour to field any questions you may have about any of those matters.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Graham Leech, BBC):

    If the feasibility of a land corridor is established, if the appropriate UN resolution were obtained, why would Britain not be among those countries willing to deploy ground troops to secure that corridor?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Every country must make its own contribution towards the overall UN contribution. We are making a contribution in flying in humanitarian forces, we are making a contribution at sea, we are making a contribution by air. Other people have their expertise in different areas and have indicated that they would be prepared to undertake different responsibilities.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    We gather that there has been disagreement over wording of a resolution here on Yugoslavia and that it will not be agreed, does that not rather overshadow the efforts of this organisation to try and turn itself from a talking shop into a real organisation which can play a part in resolving these ethnic disputes.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have the pleasure of having one of the negotiators with me.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: (DOUGLAS HURD)

    The difficulty as I understand it, this was handled by officials, was that there were some who wanted a declaration on Yugoslavia, we would have been very glad to have one, others wanted a declaration on Nogorno Karabakh, there was difficulty in agreeing the second and therefore difficulty in agreeing the first because some people linked the two. I do not think anyone expects the CSCE to be operative on Yugoslavia. The people who are operating on Yugoslavia are the Community, Lord Carrington’s peace conference as the Prime Minister just said, the UN with the UN force in Croatia, UN sanctions, and the humanitarian effort which is going ahead. So I do not think the absence of a CSCE declaration on Yugoslavia is at all harmful.

    QUESTION (Charles Reiss, Evening Standard):

    If we were to provide cover for a land corridor, and I realise you say it is conditional, can you at this stage say what form and what strength that might take and if not who will be doing the work and how fast do you expect it to be completed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is too early to give a precise answer to that, we do not know whether other people would offer to provide air cover as well or whether a substantial part of the responsibility would fall to the United Kingdom. What we have done thus far is indicate our willingness in principle, providing the feasibility of the operation is established, to provide suitable air cover. Other people may offer to do so as well, As with the naval operations, other people will offer to assist the British ships that will take part. So it is difficult to say yet, Charles, precisely how much we will need to do but the agreement that we will take part is clear.

    QUESTION (Newsweek):

    In the debate about whether WEU or NATO or both would be involved in, this Yugoslavia operation, of course the two greatest proponents of NATO having a role are Great Britain and the United States, if those are the two major powers unwilling to commit ground forces, if that should become necessary, does that not undercut a little bit the ability and the power of the argument that NATO should be heavily involved or should take the lead?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think it does and for several reasons. If we actually look at the security of Europe over the past 40 years, it has been a NATO secured security, a security secured by the Alliance and essentially, it has to be said, by the sheer strength and importance of the American presence in Europe and the capacity of the Americans beyond Europe to cone to Europe had it been necessary. That remains the situation in terms of Europe in the future. It also has to be said that the time has come for the Europeans themselves proportionately to take a greater share of the defence of Europe and of activities within Europe. And I think it is therefore entirely right for the Europeans themselves to take a greater role, although under NATO auspices, in operations that take place within Europe. And that of course is precisely what is happening. Different countries in the NATO Alliance have different interests in Yugoslavia, different history, different contacts with Yugoslavia, a number of nations, some very close to Serbia, some very close to Croatia, some geographically very close, and it is really a question of horses for courses, we must determine who can do what best and share out the responsibilities equally and adequately. But the overall position and the overall NATO umbrella I think is quite clear.

    What would be immensely difficult and dangerous for the whole of Europe would be if the Europeans’ responsibility to take a greater proportionate responsibility for defence led them to set up parallel proposals to NATO and to have two quite separate establishments dealing with the overall defence of Europe. That would be damaging, that would be dangerous, we have repeatedly said that. But the fact that within NATO different European nations should take on different responsibilities as a part of NATO seems to us to be the way ahead. The Foreign Secretary would like to add something to that.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    The point was illustrated by what actually happened here today. We had a meeting of WEU Ministers this morning and we approved the declaration which you have and you will see scattered through that at several points the emphasis on consultation and coordination with NATO. And then we had a meeting with NATO Ministers which I was very keen should happen but which only lasted quarter of an hour because there was no disagreement on the statement put out by NATO about the NATO part of it, and in that there is clear reference to cooperation with the naval force established by the WEU.

    So that outline, that work together which was sketched in principle, in theory, in many discussions last year, some of them very difficult discussions, has had its first test in action and the way in which decisions were reached this morning is I think reasonably encouraging although of course a lot depends on the follow through.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

    Prime Minister, does Britain now want to see a more strongly-worded UN Resolution and were that to come to pass, would you join President Bush in not ruling out the possibility that British airplanes could be involved in a strike against Yugoslavian insurgents?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have never ruled out the possibility of further action. We have set out the difficulties of it; we have set out the concerns of it; we have indicated the areas where we would take part in maintaining sanctions at sea with British vessels; in providing air cover for any land corridor that might be opened; in flying humanitarian supplies into Sarajevo – a number of RAF planes have been in and out of Sarajevo and that will continue.

    Those are the areas where we must continue and it may be that at some stage we will need a further United Nations Resolution. We will face that as and when it comes.

    QUESTION (Marini Vijo, Athens Radio):

    Another side of the Yugoslav problem is the issue of the previous federal Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. During the British Presidency, do you believe that a solution to this problem can be found and what kind of solution do you expect that this will be?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the difficulties of setting out what you think the solution would be is that sometimes you might make it more difficult to actually achieve the solution. That it will be a priority for us to continue to look at the problems of Yugoslavia – and it will fall particularly to the Foreign Secretary’s remit and he will wish to add something in a moment – I think there is no doubt. We will give it very high priority but I am not sure we are able to anticipate in advance of discussions and meetings that will take place what the outcome will be but the Foreign Secretary may wish to add something to that.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I agree with that. The Lisbon Summit reached a conclusion on that and I will carry that conclusion when I go to Skopje next week and I will discuss that with President Gigarov of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and I will then report back to the Foreign Affairs Council on July 20.

    QUESTION:

    The WEU operation seems to lack a clear command structure. We are talking about coordinating half a dozen ships, rules of engagement, operational activities but nobody actually in charge of it. Isn’t that rather a dangerous position to be in?

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    The command structure will of course be worked out between the WEU and NATO and from what I gather from the experts, including Archie Hamilton our Minister of State who was helping us this morning, they do not foresee any great difficulty about that. Of course, you are perfectly right that there will have to be a command structure.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a problem that inevitably there is when one has collaborative ventures of this sort and if one has to develop these collaborative ventures on the hoof as occasionally proves necessary, there are bound to be technical discussions about matters like that but they can be resolved and they will be.

    QUESTION (Nick Comfort, Daily Record):

    In your speech this morning, Prime Minister, you said when trouble threatens new means must be found to encourage or compel recourse to peaceful settlement. Doesn’t this look like a bit of a pipe-dream, given what is happening in Yugoslavia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think so. The CSCE has been quiescent one might say for a long time. It is now developing a new lease of life. We have a new Europe; we have a Europe with members who previously were wholly within the communist area. There is a great deal, I think, that can be done with peer pressure.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As year succeeds year, we all become more economically independent. Economic pressures will undoubtedly grow as between the majority of European nations and one transgressor within Europe. That is not invariably going to solve the problems but I think the prospects of them being able to bring much greater pressure on people to solve problems increase as time goes on. That is especially true of disputes between nations rather than disputes within a nation such as the problem we have in Yugoslavia which makes it so particularly intractable at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to come back to the feasibility of a land corridor to Bosnia-Hercegovina. What is your position at the moment? Is it feasible or is it not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know the answer to that, as to whether it is feasible or not; that is why the feasibility study is being carried out, to find out whether it is going to be feasible.

    If you actually look at the terrain, it is a very difficult proposition indeed to actually establish these corridors and to man them and provide security for the Red Cross and the United Nations troops in blue helmets that will be there so it is acutely difficult and nobody can be certain precisely how that feasibility study will turn out. I hope that it will prove to be possible.

    Clearly, bringing humanitarian supplies into Sarajevo airport is important but the humanitarian supplies also have to be distributed. Quite how quickly that feasibility study can be brought to a successful conclusion, I don’t know. I can only say I hope it will prove to be possible and we will help provide the air cover if it then seems that it a) is possible and b) requires air cover.

    QUESTION (Hella Pick, The Guardian):

    I wanted to ask you why nothing has been done about enforcing the trade embargo against Serbia by land and along the Danube. Is that something which is envisaged? Do you think that is feasible and will Britain be involved in that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is one of the areas of embargo that we will have to examine and it is only in the last day or so that we have actually got ships to sea to look at the trade embargo from the sea. They, of course, at the moment can only log the vessels going in and out and would need a new United Nations Resolution to stop them. Whether the existing United Nations Resolution would provide land action I am not immediately sure but the Foreign Secretary may know the answer to that.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I don’t think so. What the existing Resolution does is set up a Sanctions Committee which monitors the results of breaches of sanctions and there has been some discussion going on as to whether there has been some arrival of embargoed goods by land in Serbia. If that were clearly evidenced to the Security Council Sanctions Committee, then the Security Council would have to consider what action to take to prevent member states from breaching the embargo but that has not been proved yet.

    QUESTION (Alistair Campbell):

    Prime Minister, can you sum up for us why Britain is apparently so much more cautious than some of your partners?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know that we are more cautious than all our partners. A number of our partners are very cautious about what actually happens and what can be achieved immediately around Sarajevo.

    One only has to look at the immediate land situation around Sarajevo to see the problems that immediately exist. There you have the airport stuck in the middle of hills; you have a whole series of different groups under the control of different warlords fighting and shooting one against the other; there is no proper command control. There are a vast number of people one needs to negotiate with and if you look at the terrain, it resembles nothing so much geographically as Dien Bien Phu and one remembers the difficulties that actually occurred there.

    So the advice of the military – not just in the United Kingdom but a number of other countries as well – is that it an extremely difficult military operation. It isn’t simply a question of going into the area, conducting a brief exercise and then coming out of the area. It would firstly be difficult to get in; it would secondly be difficult to be effective when they were in; and thirdly, it would be acutely difficult perhaps to get out. Those are matters that the military commanders and those who study the feasibility of these operations will have to take very much into account.

    We saw those problems at an early stage and that is why we expressed ourselves as being cautious about them but we are in no sense alone about that and I think it is also worth nothing the remarks that have been made by some of the United Nations personnel, General Mackenzie amongst them, on the ground that we need to be very cautious about what happens with other land troops not to put at risk the UN humanitarian operation itself. In those circumstances, if other troops are there and people start firing at troops, it is extremely doubtful that they would draw a distinction between the other troops and the United Nations troops in blue helmets who are there for humanitarian reasons and that is a point that has to weigh very heavily with Mr. Boutros Ghali, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, very heavily with General Mackenzie, the Canadian commander of the troops there and very heavily with the rest of us.

    Gestures are no adequate response to putting at risk the humanitarian operation that is there and we have to face the reality of what can be done and what the price of doing it might be and it is for those reasons amongst others, why we have set out some of the problems and to borrow the phrase of the Foreign Secretary, find ourselves in land operations at the cautious end of the spectrum.

    QUESTION (Edwina Morton, The Economist):

    Prime Minister, there has been a lot of talk of conflict-prevention at this Summit. Some of the bitterest remarks in the Plenary Session have been directed at the problem of the continued presence of Russian troops in the Baltic States and Moldova. Is there any plan to assist in the speedier relocation of those troops? Does Britain intend to take any role in that whatsoever?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just add one thing I should have said perhaps to Alistair Campbell in the last question? There is one further point:

    I should have made the point – because I had in my mind the fighting troops that some people are keen to put in – that we do of course have a number of British ambulance men actually on the ground as part of UNPROFOR, I think from memory round about 300 though it may be slightly more, so we do have British personnel on the ground in and around Sarajevo contributing to ambulance operations and they will stay there.

    To revert to the question that has just been asked, I think events have moved on with the peer pressure that has been created and the Russians have said they will now remove their troops from the Baltic States. What we don’t yet have is a clear indication of the time-scale with which they would do it.

    I have raised that matter with colleagues in some of my discussions here today and I know the Foreign Secretary has done the same I think the right way to proceed is to continue to put pressure on Russia both to remove them and to examine whether assistance is needed to enable then to remove them – for they have their own difficulties in doing so that we must acknowledge – but I think a good step forward has been made in the acknowledgement by the Russians that these troops will be removed in full from the Baltic territories. Now that has been agreed we must act to make sure that it happens and happens within a measurably short period of time.