(1) Conservative Party Archive

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FINAL PRESS CONFERENCE AT CONSERVATIVE CENTRAL OFFICE ON Wednesday 13th June 1984

Mr John Selwyn Gummer, Chairman of the Party, was accompanied by the Prime Minister, Mrs Margaret Thatcher; Sir Geoffrey Howe, Foreign Secretary; Mr Michael Heseltine, Secretary of State for Defence; Viscount Whitelaw, Leader of the House of Lords; and Sir Henry Plumb, Leader of the British Conservatives in the European Parliament.

Mrs Thatcher said, “This campaign is about Britain in Europe and throughout we have tried to keep it to the true issues. We have discussed the reform of the C.A.P., which Henry Plumb led in the European Parliament; we have discussed the need for firm control over expenditure, which we led in the Council of Ministers; and we have discussed the need for a proper budgetary deal in the EEC. A good Conservative majority would strengthen our hand enormously and would help us to achieve those aims.”

The Prime Minister said that Conservative policy towards Europe went wider than simply toward the EEC. “After all, NATO was formed in 1948 and no country has been a more staunch supporter than Britain, and under Conservative rule we have greatly increased the amount spent on defence.”

When people come to decide tomorrow whether to vote, they could either stand aside, which would be unwise for them because they would be playing less than their full democratic role, or they could recognise that the European Parliament was extremely influential in Europe. “What happens at the European Parliament is of vital importance to us and what happens there is of vital importance and has a great influence on the future generally.”

Mrs Thatcher said that throughout the campaign the Conservatives had played a positive and constructive role and fought off a number of smears and bogus allegations. One was the lie that British Conservatives intended to impose V.A.T. on food. “We shall retain zero rating and for the Labour Party to say otherwise is untrue,” she said.

Conservatives had always believed in the European ideal, in the positive contribution that Europe could make to preserving peace in Western Europe, to achieving a higher standard of living and to maintaining for Europe a large and increasing voice in world affairs. “We have been a constructive and positive party and we have got the balance right. The Labour Party wants to weaken Europe's voice in the world because it does not believe in the Community,” she added.

The Veto

Asked whether, following remarks made by Mrs Castle, 22 Conservative MEPs had voted against the veto and if she intended to disown them, Mr Gummer replied that Mrs Castle 's statement was nothing more than another Labour Party smear. There had been no question of voting to abolish the veto. The Conservative MEPs had simply voted in favour of discussing the Spinelli report, which was a consultative document. “We have said time and time again that we are in favour or retaining the veto,” he added. [end p1]

Sir Henry Plumb commented, “consistently our policy has been that the veto is essential, and we stand by that.” He confirmed that the Conservative MEPs who voted for Spinelli had only voted in favour of discussing a consultative document.

Sir Geoffrey Howe said, in relation to the veto, that it was vital to retain the present position. The Liberal/SDP Alliance were prepared to throw away our effective right to retain our ability to vote in defence of our vital interests, he said.

“When people are voting tomorrow they must realise that a vote for the Conservative Party is a vote for the only party which intends to make the European institutions work, which has constantly fought and will continue to fight for British interests and which is working for a stronger Europe.”

Sir Geoffrey added that the centre right majority in the European Parliament could be overturned if 28 seats went to the Socialists in this election. “The British vote on that basis is crucial tomorrow.”

Food Surpluses

Answering a series of questions about surplus food, Sir Henry Plumb said, “Under the Conservatives, increases in food prices have been far less in the last five years than they were under Labour rule. Each year the price determined has increased at a level much lower than the level of inflation.

“There has been a lot of scaremongering in this campaign on this issue and that has been unfortunate, unwise and unreal. Conservatives are determined to control food prices and bring about the reform of C.A.P.”

Sir Henry added, “It is a question of getting all the various policies in balance between what we export, import, grow and consume.”

Apathy

Asked whether he found the whole campaign boring, Lord Whitelaw quipped, “I dislike being described as a D-Day veteran, but at least I am delighted to know that in future the sort of troubles that gave rise to that will not occur again in Western Europe. If the British people bear that in mind, they will vote tomorrow and there will be no apathy.”

Leadership

Mrs Thatcher parried the final question. “Who do you want to lead Europe?” she was asked.

“It would seem so immodest to reply,” she said. [end p2]

(2) The Times, 14 June 1984

Thatcher claim on pits

Closures slower than in plan

By Our Political Correspondent

Last week's Daily Mirror leak of Whitehall papers revealed a possible ambiguity in Mrs Thatcher's attitude to intervention in the pit strike. Anthony Bevins, Political Correspondent, yesterday pursued the issue at a Conservative Party press conference on the European Assembly elections.

The transcript of the interview is as follows.

Times

“You have said, Mr Thatcher, that you would not be prepared to intervene in the pit strike; you wouldn't be prepared to throw money, beer or sandwiches at the miners. You have also said that it can only be settled on the basis of the closure of uneconomic pits. Would you be prepared to see this strike drag on into next year.

Mrs Thatcher

I think that the last of your questions does not follow your preamble. You are only going to get an end to this strike when management and workforce, get together. That is so in almost every strike.

The offers on the table are very good offers. May I point out that the original Plan for Coal actually included closure of 3 million tonnes of coal capacity a year. That was now, 10 years since the original Plan for Coal; that would have meant the Plan for Coal, which was agreed, would by now have had a closure of something like 30 million tonnes of coal capacity. The closure plans have only been about half the rate of the Plan for Coal so I do not think there is any argument but that you have got to get the closure, even in Plan for Coal, of extensive capacity. That closure programme has not been honoured or carried out.

The other parts of the programme, for example, in the Plan for Coal the productivity should go up by about 4 per cent per annum, so that by this time you would have had an increase in productivity since 1974 of some 50 per cent.

The actual increase over the whole period is only 4.8 per cent. So the closure part and the productivity parts of Plan for Coal have not been carried out.

The part that has been carried out, namely this Government's part, is investment. Investment has gone ahead, on the Plan for Coal figures, gone ahead of those figures. So what this Government has done has fully carried out its part, indeed, more than carried out its part. We have also set the financial target. As you know the external financing limit is about £1.3bn this year and the actual amount that comes to subsidize coal, of that, comes from the taxpayer, is £900m.

Now, when you are producing some coal at £89 a tonne and other coal at £28 a tonne you have got to get out some of the uneconomic pits. That has always been recognized.

The system which the National Coal Board uses is to arrange the price of coal. That denies industry the possibility of having energy as cheaply was other people can get it on the Continent or elsewhere. When you deny industry that possibility, you lose a lot of jobs elsewhere in high energy industries.

The Plan has been fully followed by the Government as far as investment is concerned. Productivity hasn't and pit closures haven't. We have set the financial parameter, but it has in fact to be sorted out between management and workforce. And in my view it is totally and utterly wrong for any Prime Minister to contemplate getting the two sides along and doing a sort of horse-trading deal, which usually means saying to management: “Look, you've got to give in to the workforce”.

In this industry there is a monopoly of supply, there is a monopoly union. It is up to government to watch the interests of the consumers in a monopoly position, because the consumers are all other industries and all other domestic consumers, and the interest of the taxpayer. That is what we do and we shall continue to do.

Times

But the question is: If both sides remain as adamant and as pig-headed as they are at the moment, even if the strike was looking as though it was going to continue into next year, you would still not intervene?

Mrs Thatcher

I do not see what a Prime Minister can do to intervene by getting people along to 10 Downing Street. Whatever makes people think that that would solve it, except by surrender and by upsetting the whole of the reasonable prospects for the future of coal and good prospects for the consumer who has to pay both the price of coal and the electricity and has to pay a subsidy to coal and will continue to pay a subsidy for a few years hence.

Times

So you will not surrender?

Mrs Thatcher

I will not, I have indicated, I will not intervene in the sense that I will not do a beer and sandwiches session at Number 10 Downing Street. I have given you the answer and I hope that you are going to print it, you will do me the honour of printing the whole; pointing out that closures are only half of what the Plan for Coal contemplated. The productivity increases are only a tenth of what the Plan for Coal contemplated. The investment, which is the Government's part, is jolly nearly double. [end p3]

(3) BBC Radio News 1300 13 June 1984

Mrs Thatcher dubbed the Alliance “too European” at the expense of British interests; and Labour were too negative. A familiar theme. But the added interest in the Prime Minister came when she admitted she didn't expect a settlement of the problem of Britain's budget contribution at the Fontainebleau summit later this month. [end p4]

(4) BBC Sound Archive: OUP transcript

BBC Newsreader

… in Parliament. Labour's slogan has been a new deal for Europe, but Mrs. Thatcher thought that ironic since the last time she checked, Labour was for pulling out of Europe. The Prime Minister offered a less than optimistic view of the Fountainbleau Summit later this month when, it was thought, the problem of Britain's budget contribution would finally be settled. Alas, she thought that unlikely so we're in for yet another final Final Summit. As for why people should vote Conservative, Mrs. Thatcher was in no doubt.

MT

It seems to us that the Labour Party wants to weaken Europe's voice in the world, because she does not believe in the Community. It seems to us that the Liberal/SDP alliance want to weaken Britain's voice in Europe. We are the only party that has got the balance right and we are true to Britain and the influence and leadership which she can bring to Europe, and we are true to Europe in that we wish to enhance her leadership and influence in the world.

BBC Newsreader

Mrs. Thatcher, flanked by three Cabinet Ministers and others beneath a banner declaring “Conservatives, the Strong Voice in Europe”, dismissed Labour's warnings of VAT on food—a typical smear, she declared. As for the miner's strike, could we have another question, the Conservative Party chairman, John Gummer asked the man from The Times.