The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • PMQT – 29 November 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th November 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Maddock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

    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.

    Mrs. Maddock: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his Government will treat any vote on reducing VAT on domestic fuel as an issue of confidence–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady knows that VAT on fuel has been approved by the House on several occasions–I think from memory on four occasions. It was introduced two Budgets ago, and clearly it would be a very important vote if a fresh vote were manufactured on the issue. But it does not fall into the same category as the European Communities (Finance) Bill.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mrs. Gillan: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to listen to the interview yesterday with the chairman of Rentokil– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order. [Interruption.] Order. This is using very valuable time.

    Mrs. Gillan: The Opposition find one of the most successful businesses in the UK amusing. The company was awarded a most respected award in a Management Today survey last week. The chairman of Rentokil said that, in his experience, our low inflation, low costs and record exports were unprecedented. Is that not the real story and the background to today’s Budget statement?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that business men and business women around the country recognise that we have the best combination of economic circumstances for many years, and my hon. Friend is quite right to say that that is the background to the Budget. There is no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will sketch out further details shortly.

    Mr. Blair: Is it true, as some Back Benchers were saying this morning, that in exchange for their support last night they were offered by Ministers a referendum on further European integration?

    The Prime Minister: I made clear my views on that to the House in May, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary echoed those views only last Friday. They have not changed.

    Miss Emma Nicholson: In his busy day, has the Prime Minister noted the visit of the Speaker of the National Assembly of Kuwait, and his colleagues? Would my right hon. Friend now like to endorse the integrity of Kuwait’s sovereign border and the need to keep Kuwait alone, intact and in power as a state?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do as my hon. Friend asks, and I think that that would be the overwhelming view of every hon. Member. Recently, when it seemed as though–yet again–the integrity of Kuwait’s border was threatened, British troops and aircraft were there to defend it. That would of course be the position were that to happen again.

     

    Q3. Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mr. Byers: Will the Prime Minister confirm that last year his Government spent £355 million on management consultants? Is he aware that such a sum of money would have paid every pensioners’ bill for VAT on fuel? Does the Prime Minister not feel that the time has come for his Government to get their priorities right and to put the needs of pensioners before the profits of City consultants?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, substantial sums of money have been made available to assist pensioners with their value added tax on fuel bills. Very large sums have been made available and there is no relationship between that expenditure and expenditure on management consultants to help improve the efficiency of the Government, to release resources, to keep taxes down and to help ensure that there is money available to assist pensioners and others.

    Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend share the widespread disappointment that Norway will now not be alongside us in our battle against a federal Europe and a single currency? In view of the immensely strong ties that exist between our two nations, will he and the Government do their utmost to ensure the continuation of the European economic area, which is such a beneficial arrangement for Norway and the whole of Europe?

    The Prime Minister: I am extremely sorry that the Norwegian people decided not to join, but of course we respect their decision in that. Norway would have been a net contributor to the European Union, and on many issues, but perhaps not all, it would have been a valuable ally for the British point of view in Europe. I am, however, delighted that Austria and the other EFTA states have decided to join.

     

    Q4. Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Ms Hodge: Now that he leads a minority Government, will the Prime Minister break the habit of a lifetime, stick to at least one of his election pledges and scrap the proposed rise in VAT on fuel?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will have heard me say just a few moments ago that the House had debated that matter on four separate occasions.

    Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency alone hundreds of children from less well-off families benefit from the assisted places scheme? Is it not a shame that the Labour party wants to deprive children of that opportunity, especially when some in its leadership have had the benefit of a similar opportunity?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the assisted places scheme. The whole purpose of that scheme and, indeed, of the education reforms generally, is to give children opportunities that otherwise they would not have had. I regret very much that many of those opportunities seem to attract the opposition of the Labour party. One of the more distasteful sides of politics is seeing those who have climbed up the ladder of opportunity kicking it away from other people.

     

    Q5. Mr. Rendel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mr. Rendel: What moral difference does the Prime Minister see between what we all agree is wrong–Members of this House accepting payment to ask questions–and a party which accepts payment from the tobacco industry in return for vetoing a ban on tobacco advertising?

    The Prime Minister: There is no relationship between the two facts.

    Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend will remember the speech that he gave last Thursday at the staff college at Camberley. We know how well the students there received that speech. In it, he referred specifically to Bosnia and said that we could not impose peace on those who did not wish to accept it. He said that if we tried to do so we would leave many hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground. Will the Prime Minister give us all an assurance that those troops–British, French, Dutch and all the others who have served in Bosnia–will be our first priority and that, if need be, he will make sure that they come out of that mess safely?

    The Prime Minister: Let me say to my hon. Friend that I reject totally some of the lurid and misplaced criticism of the United Nations protection forces that have been made in some American newspapers in the past few days. The protection forces in Bosnia are not a combat force; they were never intended to be a combat force; they are not equipped there to be combat force. They are there on a humanitarian mission, and that mission has saved the life of hundreds of thousands of Bosnians.

    I very much wish UNPROFOR to continue its humanitarian work, as long as it can do its job without there being unacceptable risks to the United Nations troops that are there. However, I have to say to the House that if the parties to the conflict make the humanitarian task of UNPROFOR impossible, if they intensify the war rather than seek a peaceful settlement, they could create the conditions in which the United Nations would have no choice but to withdraw. I do not wish that to happen, but I have to say to the House that that could happen.

     

    Q6. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mr. Hughes: When the Prime Minister was first elected four years ago, he set himself the aim of creating a nation at ease with itself. In the light of last night, at which of the following does he think he has been more successful–creating a nation at ease with itself or creating a party at ease with itself? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to hon. Members on the Labour Benches for suggestions as to how I should reply to the question from an hon. Member on the Liberal Benches. Given the fact that one can find a different Liberal policy from each Liberal to the next, and a different Liberal policy from each door to the next, each street to the next and each constituency to the next, I think that the hon. Gentleman should look at his own party before he criticises mine.

    Mr. Ashby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a recent survey of every household in my constituency, more than 90 per cent. expressed themselves satisfied with the national health service? That is reflected in other surveys. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those newspapers that continually talk down one of the finest health services in the world?

    The Prime Minister: I will happily join my hon. Friend in that. There is no doubt about the affection for the national health service and, although we often hear a great deal of generalised criticism of it, that criticism tends not to come from the people who have just had treatment in the national health service. They tend to be very supportive of it, and rightly so, because of the treatment that it offers and the service that it gives.

     

    Q7. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mr. Jones: I am sure that the Prime Minister will wish to join me in congratulating Customs officers, including those based at Holyhead in my constituency, on their efforts to combat drug smuggling. Does he agree that those efforts would be severely damaged if reports are true that 4,000 Customs officers are to lose their jobs as a result of an announcement today? How will that equate with the fact that the Prime Minister has announced the war on drugs? Will it not blow a gaping hole in his policy?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the importance of the battle against drugs; hence the domestic and international initiatives that we have taken and the work set in train by the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. Whatever may happen to the budgets to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I can assure him that the battle against drugs will not suffer.

    Sir Peter Emery: In welcoming Senator Dole to this country, will my right hon. Friend point out that the United States Congress has many friends on both sides of the House, but that that friendship has been built up by Members of Congress and of the Senate fully understanding the work of their allies?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly look forward to meeting Senator Dole tomorrow, and I know that he is also meeting my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. We have a wide range of matters to discuss, and I am sure that those discussions will be fruitful and productive.

     

    Q8. Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Ms Anderson: Will the Prime Minister confirm reports that the President of the Board of Trade is looking again at the privatisation of the Post Office?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady should not be in any doubt that we think that the right decision, when we have a majority in the House, will be to privatise the Post Office.

    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving to the shareholders of privatised utilities greater powers to decide the salaries of their directors in advance, rather than reading about them months after the event?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an ingenious suggestion, which I shall be happy to consider.

     

    Q9. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mr. McKelvey: The Prime Minister appeared to be somewhat ambivalent on the question of a referendum on European Union affairs. Could we have a referendum in Scotland so that we can tell the right hon. Gentleman and the country how we wish to be governed?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that there was a referendum on that issue some years ago. The hon. Gentleman knows, and in their hearts most people know, that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament would be immensely damaging both for Scotland and for every other part of the United Kingdom. It may well be Labour party policy, and we shall test to what extent over the weeks ahead, but it is not a thought-out policy, it is not a policy in the interests of Scotland, or of the people of Scotland, and it is not a policy in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 November 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th November 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement concerning the cost to public funds of employing ministerial special advisers in his Department.

    The Prime Minister: There are five special advisers in No. 10 Downing Street.

    Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers’ salary spine of 34 points ranging from £19,503 to £67,609 or, in some cases, at a rate appropriate to a relevant civil service grade. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

     

    Christmas Expenditure

    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister how many official Christmas cards he intends to send out in 1994; and how much these will cost.

    The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 22 November 1994, Official Report, column 89.

     

    Internet

    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to provide information via the Internet; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: My office is currently studying options to provide information via the Internet.

     

    Mohamed Al-Fayed

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the considerations which led the Cabinet Secretary not to interview Mohamed Al- Fayed in his investigations into allegations of improper behaviour by Government Ministers.

    The Prime Minister: The Cabinet Secretary indicated his reasons in his report, which I published on 25 October 1994, Official Report, columns 521-22, and I have nothing further to add.

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister if the Nolan committee will be interviewing Mohamed Al-Fayed in its examination of standards in public life; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: It is for the Committee on Standards in Public Life to decide whom it wishes to invite to give oral evidence.

     

    Crown Appointments Commission

    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister who are the current members of the Crown Appointments Commission.

    The Prime Minister: The Crown Appointments Commission is a standing commission of the General Synod of the Church of England. Its membership is set out on page 38 of the current edition of the “Church of England Year Book”, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

     

    Utility Regulators

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will review the powers of the (a) gas and (b) other utility regulators over boardroom salaries, shareholdings and perks.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 November 1994]: The utility regulators’ role is to promote competition and operate price caps in areas of monopoly. Within this framework it is for each company and its shareholders to exercise control of board membership, pay and conditions.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Army Staff College in Camberley – 24 November 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Army Staff College in Camberley on Thursday 24th November 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Duke of Wellington used to offer some succinct advice to Members of Parliament:

    “Don’t quote Latin; say what you have to say; and then sit down.”

    I shall try to follow his advice this evening. You will be relieved to hear that I am not going to speak in Latin.

    I am delighted to be, for the first time, in this famous Staff College. If my spies are correct, no British Prime Minister has been here since 1910 at least.

    But the purpose of my visit is not to deliver a staff college lecture. Someone kindly provided one, but I hope you’ll forgive me if I do not use it.

    Some of you may remember the broadcaster Gilbert Harding. In the 1950s, during McCarthy’s campaign against Communism, he arrived in New York. One of the questions on the immigration form asked whether the purpose of his visit to the United States was “to overthrow the Republic”. Harding managed to get himself arrested by writing the reply: “not sole purpose of the trip”.

    The purpose of my visit here is not to tell you things you already know far better than I do.

    I’d like instead to give you my personal view of the Armed Forces, based particularly on my experiences over the past four years as Prime Minister.

    Then I’d like to give a view on the tasks which lie ahead, and the principles which should underlie security policy in Britain and Europe.

    Personal impressions

    I am in the company of servicemen and servicewomen virtually every day, so I promise not to give you all of my impressions. But let me take a few vignettes to illustrate my conviction that Britain’s modern, professional Armed Forces are a peerless national asset.

    I’ll start with Iraq.

    With 20/20 hindsight and a pair of blinkers, the allied victory in the Gulf war may now look easy. You will rightly have a different recollection.

    The political issues were clear enough. In a premeditated and unprovoked attack, Iraq had tried to annex a sovereign member of the United Nations and a country with which we had friendly relations. It had flouted international law. And its actions posed a direct threat to the stability of a region in which the UK and the West had vital interests.

    But militarily, the task was formidable. Iraq is 3000 miles away, and had an army of nearly a million men – the fourth largest in the world – and 700 attack aircraft. We did not know how good the Republican Guard was – but they had a formidable reputation. Iraq also had chemical weapons and was developing a nuclear and biological capability. We could not be sure they would not use, in particular, chemical weapons.

    To defeat Iraq, we had to combine with our American, French and regional allies in an operation of extraordinary complexity involving all arms of our forces.

    This did not just require courage, though our forces displayed bravery of the highest order. It also demanded organisation, the ability – borne through long experience – to work with allies, the deployment and maintenance of highly sophisticated equipment, and at all levels intelligence, skill and clear-sightedness.

    As I saw for myself, all of these qualities were vital to our eventual success. And our commanders operated with total confidence in themselves and their men and women.

    Typically, during the conflict British aircraft and troops moved into action late at night, UK time. Night after night, I sat up very late at Downing Street, waiting to hear the outcome of their actions. Such experiences leave an imperishable memory.

    However, the job did not end when fighting stopped.

    When Saddam Hussein turned against the Kurds, we faced a challenge of an entirely different kind. Not a high-intensity desert war, but a military and humanitarian operation without precedent in almost inaccessible mountainous terrain. That too was carried out regardless of difficulty, and the Kurds have lived under the umbrella of the Northern No-Fly Zone ever since.

    We must not relax while the threat to the Kurds remains. But thanks to Operation Haven, thousands of Kurds, who would otherwise have died or been displaced, are alive today.

    Only last month, Saddam Hussein tested the international community again. And once again he met an unambiguous response, and our friends were shown that we had both the will and the skill to come to their help.

    We had aircraft overhead within hours, ships off Kuwait within days, and 1,200 troops from the Spearhead Battalion deployed by 110 Hercules sorties in a week and a half.

    Thanks to high readiness and military efficiency, our forces played a leading part in this successful act of pre-emption.

    Without firing a shot, they defended British and international interests.

    The conflict in the former Yugoslavia has faced all three Services with yet another set of demands:

    – on the ground with UNPROFOR, the tasks of humanitarian relief; local peacemaking; ceasefire monitoring; and the maintenance of safe areas;

    – in the air with NATO, the enforcement of exclusion zones; reconnaissance and close air support; and deterrent action;

    – at sea with the WEU and NATO, the enforcement of sanctions and the arms embargo.

    And this is far from an exclusive list.

    I shall say more in a few minutes about the worrying situation we now face in Bosnia. But let me just summarise my impressions of an unforgettable 24 hours there in the spring:

    – the day started with a matter-of-fact briefing by Brigadier John Reith on how, over the past three weeks, he and his troops had negotiated and mapped, a ceasefire line of 206 kilometres, and brought the heavy weapons under control;

    – I then had a dramatic ride over the mountains in a Sea King flown with gusto by a fearless naval pilot;

    – -in Bugojno, the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment were just settling into their new quarters – a former tannery caked in animal waste, without heat, running water or sanitation. Mortars flew overhead at intervals. And the morale of these young men and women was sky high;

    – at the field hospital in Vitez, I met a theatre sister who said she wouldn’t have swapped her time there for the world;

    – in the same camp, I talked to sappers who were making streets safe, one of whom – Corporal Barney Warburton – sadly gave his life a few days later on a mine-clearance operation;

    – I went to Sarajevo, and was driven around by General Rose. Thanks to the UN’s efforts, the trams were running again down sniper alley, and people were out on the streets. Without helmet or flak jacket, Mike Rose calmly drove through a road block on a confrontation line, to show me where a sniper had shot a civilian only days before. “He’s up there now”, he said gaily, pointing at a nearby bomb-damaged tower block – much to the consternation of my security officers;

    – and as the sun set, the RAF lifted me out, near-vertically, in a Hercules which was running the gauntlet in order to keep vital supplies flowing into the city.

    Perhaps the most indelible of all these memories was the sight of children playing outside for the first time in months, and families beginning to dig their gardens and repair their houses.

    And I knew that it was thanks to the skill, dedication and toughness of British and other UN forces that they had survived and were able to do these things.

    It would be a tragedy if those gains were now to be lost.

    One of the reasons for the superb British performance in Bosnia has been the experience gained over the past quarter century in yet another role, in Northern Ireland. Whenever, around the world, I have discussed peace-keeping, soldiers and politicians alike refer to the skills of the British Army, honed in Northern Ireland.

    Our forces have patrolled the streets and the countryside there for one simple reason: to help the RUC defend the people of the Province, irrespective of political or religious affiliation, against terrorism.

    They have made a great sacrifice. Since the troubles began, 648 members of the armed forces and 296 policemen have lost their lives to terrorism in Northern Ireland.

    But their sacrifice has manifestly not been in vain. On my visits to the security forces in Northern Ireland this year, I have found growing optimism that there is a fundamental change in the atmosphere.

    The security forces have withstood the most determined and heavily armed terrorist campaign in modern Europe. And they have proved that violence cannot win in Northern Ireland. Without their steadfastness, there would be no ceasefire and no hope of a brighter future today.

    Let me briefly mention two other recent images.

    Early in September, I saw British forces leave what had for years been the front line of the Cold War. At the Airlift Memorial and the Brandenberg Gate, they and our Allies were given heartfelt thanks by the people of Berlin, whom they had defended and sustained through dark and threatening times.

    Later that month, I witnessed in South Africa another skill which the British Army has recently developed. Fourteen years ago, a British military team helped to integrate the new army of Zimbabwe at the end of a long and bitter war. So successful were they that they were invited to perform a similar function first in Namibia and then in Mozambique. Now they are acting as consultants to a process which is vital to the South African transition.

    What have these various experiences shown me?

    First, though I was never in any doubt of this, the Armed Forces are – and will remain – integral to the success of the nation, at home and overseas. Wherever they operate, they are held in the highest respect, and reflect enormous credit on the United Kingdom.

    Second, there is no substitute for excellence. It is the sheer quality of each of our Services which shines through, wherever you meet them. The quality of recruitment, training, leadership and equipment. I am in no doubt that we have been right over many years to concentrate on quality rather than quantity, and to ensure that our resources are focused to this end.

    Third, the tasks which the Services now fulfil are surely more diverse than at any time in our history. From nuclear deterrence to counter-terrorism, from UN peacekeeping to the training – at home and overseas – of personnel from other countries. Without sacrificing core functions and specialisations, we need flexibility and adaptability. As Enoch Powell once said:

    “History is full of the wars people said would never happen.”

    Fourth, modern military operations tend to be coloured Purple. The Gulf conflict and Bosnia have demonstrated how vital it is to have close integration between ground, air and naval forces, and a wide understanding by commanders of the potential of the different service arms. This must be blended with the esprit de corps and individual traditions which are also essential elements of the British services.

    Future shape and role of the Armed Forces

    So much for the present. How in broad terms do I see the future of our forces?

    Let me first emphasise a point I have made on several recent occasions.

    The forces have been through a period of change which was both inevitable and, I know, unsettling. In order to reshape our forces for the future, hard and often painful decisions have been required. I am very conscious that, while the policy decisions have now been taken, it will take some years to implement them fully.

    It is therefore particularly important for you and your colleagues to be assured – as I can assure you – that the big upheavals are over. The level of front line manpower has been set and we do not intend to reduce it.

    You may ask what will happen if we are able to reduce our commitment in Northern Ireland – the largest commitment which the Army has had over the last quarter century.

    I of course hope that we shall be able to make this reduction.

    We shall take no risks over security there, and in the first instance it is the hours of duty rather than the manpower which need to be reduced. But our long-term objective, when the security situation allows, is of course to return to exclusively civilian policing.

    However, this will not mean that we reduce the size of the Armed Forces. It will instead give us leeway to deal more effectively with the demands on military resources, and to provide more time for training. If we have a margin, we shall certainly not be short of tasks for it.

    Your future effectiveness also depends on having the right equipment. That was one of the key objectives of “Front Line First”.

    As you know, Front Line First enabled us to confirm £5bn worth of orders and tenders for new equipment – ships for the Navy, tanks for the Army, laser-guided bombs and the upgrading of Tornados for the Royal Air Force.

    “Front Line First” also dealt with the way the Armed Forces are organised and managed. It benefited greatly from the involvement of middle ranking and junior service personnel, and will encourage the devolution of responsibility. It will also lead to a permanent Joint Headquarters, a Joint Rapid Deployment Force and a Joint Services Command and Staff College.

    Over the past 45 years, Britain has played a unique role in defence, both in Europe and globally. Defence has always been one of this country’s outstanding strengths.

    Through the changes I have described, I am confident that our Armed Forces are in the right shape for to play an equally strong role in the future. They will have the people, the material, and the management that they need to carry out their changing tasks.

    Their highest priorities are the protection of the United Kingdom and its dependent territories, and collective defence through NATO.

    The independent nuclear deterrent, which the Royal Navy and the RAF have maintained since the 1950s, provides the ultimate guarantee of our national security. It is a vital element of NATO’s system of war-prevention and a force for stability in Europe.

    This Government is pledged to maintain that deterrent through Trident, which will come into service around the turn of the year.

    We also have a formidable capability to promote our wider security interests. We can deploy forces on land, sea and in the air anywhere in the world, to play a significant role unilaterally or in a coalition.

    And, as our current experiences show, we have the flexibility to carry out diverse military tasks:

    – When the need arises, as it did in the Gulf, we have a war-fighting capability.

    – We have the equipment and the experience for peacekeeping. We have done this for years in Cyprus, for example.

    – Our forces are operating, as I have said, in several different roles in Bosnia.

    – In Rwanda, we deployed 600 specialist troops to support humanitarian operations, in an unfamiliar and horrifying environment.

    And in Europe, our forces have taken part in the first three “Partnership for Peace” exercises. These brought together – in Poland, the Netherlands and the Norwegian sea area – the forces of countries which only a few years ago were divided by the Cold War.

    These and other tasks, including training, mean that Britain now has troops deployed or stationed in over 40 countries around the world – a remarkable figure which seems more likely to increase than to diminish.

    Those deployments, great and small, help to support and defend Britain’s global interests. They have a central role in our external policy.

    Bosnia

    Before I turn to the wider security environment, I should say a word about Bosnia.

    The situation on the ground has deteriorated sharply over the last few weeks. It is all the more important to be clear about our objectives there.

    Neither UNPROFOR nor NATO can take sides in this war. Nor are they equipped to impose peace on the warring parties. If this were achievable, it would require a massive intervention on the ground, including a very large contingent from the United States. That is not, and has never been, in prospect.

    Nor is there, in our judgement and experience, any prospect of imposing peace through aerial bombardment.

    Our objective is a negotiated settlement, acceptable to all parties. We believe that this is the only solution which could last. We must reinvigorate diplomatic efforts, as UNPROFOR’s peacekeeping operation cannot be sustained indefinitely in a vacuum.

    I have therefore written to the leaders of countries in the Bosnian Contact Group to stress the urgency of progress when our Foreign Ministers meet in Brussels next Friday. If humanitarian operations are to continue, we need a commitment from all the parties to the search for a peaceful settlement, and a firm undertaking to respect the status of United Nations and other international personnel in Bosnia.

    We must also do all we can to prevent the war from spreading. We have succeeded so far. But the risk of a wider Balkan conflict reigniting is real.

    UNPROFOR’s mandate is to convey relief supplies to those in need, and to promote and monitor local ceasefires. Thanks to UNPROFOR, the area of conflict within Bosnia was greatly reduced this year, as I saw on my own visit. But the latest offensives and counter offensives in Bihac and elsewhere are threatening to turn the clock back.

    UNPROFOR should not remain if it cannot carry out its appointed tasks, or if the risks become intolerable.

    I of course do not want to see its withdrawal. However, if the parties restart all-out war or the arms embargo breaks down, UNPROFOR could have no choice but to withdraw.

    There would be no winners. Millions of ordinary people in Bosnia would be the losers.

    We must see this danger clearly. The parties must be made to see it, too, by a collective diplomatic effort of the kind I have suggested.

    We should not yet write off the possibility of further progress; but without it, the UN cannot allow the lives of its soldiers and aid workers to be endangered needlessly.

    It is time for a sober reappraisal by all who have Bosnia’s interests at heart.

    Wider Security Environment

    The paradox created by the end of the Cold War is by now familiar.

    The potential threat of general war may be far less. But there is also, undoubtedly, less peace.

    We have the opportunity to manage security in a much more rational way, through co-operation between the major powers; but we also have the problem that the lid has been lifted off a great many regional crises.

    There are two areas of potential instability in or near to Europe.

    To the East of Europe and down to the Balkans and the Caucausus, States which have just regained or acquired independence face a huge transition combined, in many cases, with internal ethnic tensions.

    In parts of North Africa and the Middle East, there is instability of a different sort, fomented or exploited by extremism.

    These are the challenges to which Europe must adapt. It is a process we need to carry further.

    The European Union has a role to play in both areas. By developing political and other contacts, by opening its markets, and where appropriate by helping countries in Central and Eastern Europe to move towards full membership, the EU can do much to extend prosperity and stability.

    We must also strengthen links through the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. This should be the aim of the CSCE Summit which I shall be attending in Budapest at the beginning of December.

    The CSCE should set standards in European security, for example, in the treatment of minorities. It should provide an early warning system and a means of conflict prevention. Though it will not have the capability to manage military operations, it should be better equipped to carry out such practical tasks as the provision of liaison officers and observer missions.

    NATO must of course remain the bedrock of our security. In practice, it is the only organisation which can provide for our own defence and that of our allies. Its inner strength and transatlantic link should not be weakened. NATO must adapt to the new environment. It should put greater emphasis on crisis management. It must not be seen as simply an alliance of last resort, brought into play only when the territorial integrity of its own members is under threat.

    NATO’s Partnership for Peace programme has been a very important stage in its evolution. Twenty-three nations have established partnership with the alliance. Partnership for Peace is helping military establishments to adjust to their new roles in a democratic society.

    Russia is of course central to this. We are building up a new relationship with Russia which reflects her position as a major international power. At the UN Security Council, in the annual Summit meetings, through the European Union and CSCE, through Partnership for Peace of course, and in our direct bilateral contacts, we are working with Russia on an equal and co-operative basis. Consultation between us is becoming a matter of habit, as it is with our international partners.

    For some, the Partnership for Peace programme will naturally lead in time to inclusion in the alliance itself. We and our Allies have said that we expect enlargement of NATO, but it will be a gradual, evolutionary process which will threaten no-one. It must contribute to our central objective of extending security and prosperity eastwards; and it must be taken forward in parallel with a closer relationship between NATO and Russia.

    This should be the aim of NATO Foreign Ministers when they meet in Brussels next week and commission work on the principles and obligations of NATO membership.

    But NATO cannot cope with everything. We cannot expect American troops to be present in every international crisis. There will be problems in which Europe’s interests are more closely involved than those of the United States. In these cases, we will need to ensure that we Europeans can do the job effectively ourselves, in a way that is compatible with NATO.

    This does not mean a European Army, answerable to a single European authority. Decisions on the use of our Armed Forces must rest with the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom. Armed forces are a fundamental attribute of a sovereign nation-state.

    In the Western European Union, however, we have a ready-made European pillar for NATO. The WEU has been given a mandate to become the defence arm of the European Union. Defence is not an area where the traditional institutions of the European Community – the Commission, the Parliament, the Court – have any role to play. Instead, those European governments which wish to do so should improve their ability to take military action together by developing the WEU.

    One potential problem is already being resolved. January’s NATO Summit launched the concept of Combined Joint Task Forces. They will provide a command structure for operations in which the United States is not involved. They will be separable from NATO but not, crucially, separate.

    I believe that a realistic objective would be for the WEU to be able to undertake military operations of at least the scale of the current UNPROFOR operation in Bosnia. But for this we shall need to do three things: to improve the WEU’s capabilities for military planning; to put in place arrangements for the high level, political direction of military operations; and to ensure that the WEU can work in harness with other countries, including its own associate partners.

    Improving the collective capabilities of the WEU means also improving our ability to operate alongside individual partners.

    We are developing this in a pragmatic way, step by step. With Germany and other allies in NATO formations also available to the WEU. With the Dutch, with whom we have long had a joint amphibious force. And of course with the French. At my Summit meeting with President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Balladur last week, we set up a Franco-British Air Group. It will have its headquarters at High Wycombe, and its first Commander will be a French General. This planning group will help our two Air Forces to work more effectively together in future multilateral operations.

    Conclusion

    I have done no more than sketch out some of the elements for the future European Security and Defence Identity.

    This is an important subject for the future, and one in which the United Kingdom will play a strong part.

    Among the member states of the European Union, Britain’s contribution to the defence of Europe in the post-war period has been second to none. In her Armed Forces, Britain has the experience, skill and professionalism to meet the new challenges facing Europe.

    And this is a contribution which we are of course making also to the United Nations and directly to our friends in the Commonwealth and around the globe.

    Some of you in this room will have worn the blue beret of the United Nations. Others will certainly do so in the future.

    As a country which leans heavily on her worldwide interests and trade, it is right that Britain should play a full part in peacekeeping, peacemaking and humanitarian relief.

    In Africa, for example, we are ready to expand our role, by providing support and training to African peacekeepers. Under an initiative which the Foreign Secretary and I launched in September, we hope to do so in tandem with the French, and perhaps also with the help of other partners through the WEU.

    The United Nations tends to be burdened with the problems that others cannot solve. Inevitably it cannot always solve them. The operation in Somalia, for example, has left us with lessons to draw. But the UN has a responsibility to try where there is a realistic chance of success, and it deserves our active support.

    Whether you are serving at home or abroad, whether you are from the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy or the Army, you will have a role to play in the new strategic environment.

    You will be part of an outstanding Service which needs some of the brightest and bravest of our citizens.

    Part of a body of men and women motivated by your Service Ethos:

    – by pride in your traditions and institutions;

    – by comradeship and team spirit;

    – by the emotional, intellectual and moral qualities which lead people to put their lives on the line;

    – by loyalty and patriotism;

    – by an enduring belief in British values and an unshakeable determination to defend them.

    You will have a career to be proud of, and the country will be proud of you.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 November 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th November 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministers’ Conduct

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what is the position of Her Majesty’s Government on inviting senior civil servants, such as the Cabinet Secretary, to sit with the Patronage Secretary to examine Ministers about their conduct.

    The Prime Minister: From time to time, my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and the Cabinet Secretary are asked to advise me on matters relating to the registration of Members’ interests and “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”. This may necessitate establishing the facts with the Ministers concerned.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister how many Government Departments are involved following up the Pan Am 103 crash over Lockerbie; and if he will identify their respective responsibilities.

    The Prime Minister: The Crown Office is the lead department on matters relating to the prosecution of those suspected of the Lockerbie bombing. The Foreign and Commonwealth office is the lead Department for international aspects. These Departments consult others on issues for which they are responsible, as they arise.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.

    The Prime Minister: 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.

     

    Halsbury Statutes

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to review the Halsbury statutes of 1717 with a view to their repeal; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any statutes passed in 1717 which are both still in force and in need of repeal.

     

    Ministers’ Pensions

    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers in Her Majesty’s Government between 1986 and 1994 have had pension contributions paid by outside interests while they held ministerial office.

    The Prime Minister: Pension arrangements are a personal matter for individual Ministers. However, they are expected to follow the guidance in paragraphs 128 134 of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”.

     

    Salary Increases

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if the Government will ask the Confederation of British Industry to request that salary increases for chief executives and chairmen of companies should not exceed the rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on 22 November, Official Report, column 465.

  • PMQT – 24 November 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th November 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 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. McKelvey: In the course of his very busy day, will the Prime Minister show some concern for the plight of the disabled, the elderly and the poor in our society who suffer disproportionately because they cannot pay their fuel bills? Will he chuck the intended VAT increase into the dustbin where it belongs and replace it with an adequate cold climate allowance?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman may know, my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will be making a statement on the disabled after Question Time. On fuel and power generally, the VAT compensation package compensates not only poorer pensioners but others for VAT on fuel. The measures are worth about £2.5 billion over three years. From 1996-97 onwards, spending on benefits and pensions will have been increased permanently by £1.25 billion a year. That is an indication of the extent to which we are prepared to make and have made provision to help people on low incomes.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.

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

    Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend understand that I for one would rather resign the party Whip than vote for a Bill with which dozens of his right hon. and hon. Friends do not agree and for which there is no popular support? Will he recognise the absolute folly of imposing a highly unpopular tax for the purpose of paying the subscription to a highly unpopular and increasingly expensive club?

    The Prime Minister: Like me, my hon. Friend has a large rural constituency and I suspect that there are many net gainers in his constituency as a result of our membership of the European Union. On the European Communities (Finance) Bill, as my hon. Friend knows, there was very broad support in the governing party and in other parties for the deal that I reached at Edinburgh in 1992. It has a small additional cost for the United Kingdom–£75 million next year, rising to £250 million in 1999. It preserves the United Kingdom abatement, which is very important and which has saved us £16 billion since 1984. As a result of the agreement that I reached, the United Kingdom’s share of the cost falls proportionately by a substantial amount and becomes far less than that of many other member states. As a result of the agreement, we shall be below Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Norway in the league table of net contributors. It is an agreement that we can legitimately commend to the House and, on its merits, it merits support.

    Mr. Blair: Now that the Cabinet has confirmed that next Monday’s vote is indeed a vote of confidence, may I take it that the Prime Minister will be leading for and speaking for the Government in that debate?

    The Prime Minister: The vote of confidence relates not just to the vote on Monday but, as I said to the House some time ago, to the passage of the Bill in all its essentials. In those circumstances, the Cabinet considers it right that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should open.

    Mr. Blair: I find that extraordinary. Can the Prime Minister understand why people do not feel confident in his Government? Would the following be a fair summary of where he stands this week? The deputy chairman of his party is found to have written a memorandum which admits the total contempt that the British public has for his party. The vice-chairman of his party is forced to resign after remarks about our European partners which beggar belief in an adult politician. The chairman of the Prime Minister’s Back-Bench Committee is challenged because he is too loyal to the Prime Minister. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, meanwhile, talks of suicide pacts among Ministers while getting his sums wrong on the European budget. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s Back-Bench Members roll around the television studios in a state of anarchy. After this week, would not any objective, reasonable observer conclude that his party has become an ill- disciplined rabble incapable of governing this country?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman managed to muddle most of his facts as between deputy chairman and vice-chairman, he is certainly wrong on almost every statement that he uttered. If he really wants to know about divisions and rabbles, he might well look at the divisions in his own party, not least below the Gangway. He might well look at divisions between himself and the deputy leader of the Labour party. He might well look at the divisions in his own position on Europe. It was the right hon. Gentleman who said some years ago– [Interruption.] I know that the Opposition do not like it, but perhaps they should hear it. It was the right hon. Gentleman who said:

    “We’ll negotiate a withdrawal from the EEC.”

    It was the right hon. Gentleman who said more recently:

    “Well, I wasn’t actually opposed to membership of the European Community.”

    Just a few days ago, it was the right hon. Gentleman who said: “Under my leadership, I will never allow this country to be isolated and left behind in Europe.”

    The only thing that moves that fast is a rabbit heading for its burrow.

    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also agree that, apart from the comprehensive answer that he gave previously, the essential reality for Monday is that the glib repudiation of a solemn treaty, an international agreement and a modest proposal for European Union financing increases would be almost as bad as a shameful attack on our closest foreign allies, which we have heard from other quarters in the past few days?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches on an important point that was missed by the Leader of the Opposition. The Government are standing by an agreement that we reached in 1992 with strong support in the House at the time and that we reached with our European partners. The Bill before the House implements an international agreement that was negotiated with full Cabinet backing, accepted by the Cabinet and widely endorsed by the House. It is for that reason that it is inescapably a matter of confidence that the Government should secure the passage of that legislation.

    Mr. Ashdown: Whatever the Prime Minister’s protestations, does he not realise that it is the view of most people in this country that his Government and their kamikaze Cabinet have now descended into farce and civil war? If, on Monday, they were forced to go, the whole country would cheer and a start could be made on putting our nation’s problems right.

    The Prime Minister: I sometimes think that the right hon. Gentleman spends all the time between Tuesday and Thursday and between Thursday and Tuesday practising his next sound bite. He certainly gives that impression week after week. I remind him that it is he and his party who claim to be strong Europeans, he and his party who time and again joined in procedural votes to try to wreck the Maastricht treaty, and he and his party who will find an excuse next Monday to vote against the Government. Their commitment to Europe is skin deep when it comes to essentials.

    Mr. Ottaway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Cairo conference on population and development in September was a landmark in dealing with world population growth in that it produced a global action plan agreed by almost every country? Does he agree, in particular, that the best way to implement such a plan would be for other countries to follow the Government’s example and announce a similar huge increase in funding of 60 per cent. such as he announced in July?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a very serious international problem and I think that the international conference which took place was an extremely useful and worthwhile event. As my hon. Friend indicated, we made a substantial contribution–I think, from memory, that the commitment was around £100 million over the next two or three years–and we played a very positive part in that conference. It is a matter of importance and one to which we shall give continuing interest in the future.

     

    Q3. Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.

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

    Mr. Ainsworth: Following today’s astonishing revelations of a massive security breach by an employee on a short-term contract at British Telecom, will the Prime Minister be ordering an inquiry? If so, will it cover the huge increase in agency and casual labour since privatisation?

    The Prime Minister: I have seen the report in The Independent this morning to which I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring. I understand from inquiries made this morning that BT has carried out an investigation and tells us that it is satisfied that there has been no hacking of the system, nor any evidence that confidential information referred to in the article has ever been available on Internet.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my right hon. Friend heard of the presumptuous attempt by the town of Preston to usurp the place of the city of Lancaster as the county town of Lancashire? Will he put every possible obstacle in the way of that outrageous presumption?

    The Prime Minister: I see that my hon. Friend has the cross-party support of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). As a southerner unfamiliar with this particular matter, I think that it would be unwise for me to commit myself, but, naturally, as my hon. Friend raises the matter, I shall look at it very carefully.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.

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

    Mr. Hall: Is the Prime Minister aware that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), yesterday told the House that he was disgusted with the Maples proposals for inter-party warfare, yobbos and trying to trick people into positions? He said that they were completely unjustifiable and called on the Prime Minister to repudiate them immediately. Will the Prime Minister do that this afternoon–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned that any of my hon. Friends would be nasty to the right hon. Gentleman, I give him my assurance that my hon. Friends will be very gentle with him.

    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country’s international reputation for probity is built on the proposition that contracts are honoured and commitments kept?

    The Prime Minister: I agree precisely with that proposition. It is upon that proposition that the Cabinet is determined to honour the agreement that I reached on behalf of the British Government two years ago with our European partners in Edinburgh.

     

    Q5. Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.

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

    Mr. Gapes: Is the Prime Minister aware of the acute financial crisis facing Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority, which is asking Redbridge health care trust to do 10 per cent. more work for about £2.5 million less next year? Will he express his clear and unambiguous commitment to do everything possible to keep King George’s hospital open and stop any closure of its accident and emergency department?

    The Prime Minister: I will certainly study the position that exists within that health district and ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to examine it. I do not have the facts in front of me and I do not propose to commit myself until I have looked at them.

    Sir Wyn Roberts: As the Leader of the Opposition welcomed the recovery, growth and low inflation in the economy, is there any reason why we should pay any attention whatever to the shadow Chancellor, who is intent on sabotaging those achievements?

    The Prime Minister: I would think probably no reason at all. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman does not do so–and if he does not, I see no reason why we should.

     

    Q6. Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 November.

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

    Dr. Jones: Does the Prime Minister recall that, in an answer to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), he told the House “No Government have ever been more open than this one and there is no suspicion of sleaze.”–[ Official Report , 26 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 104.]

    Is that still his view, or does he at last realise that he set the standard at the last general election when he accepted money from foreign-based business men in return for continuing tax concessions?

    Hon. Members: What about Maxwell?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friends remind me of one person who formerly funded the Labour party. The hon. Lady ought to contemplate that. Perhaps the Labour party should return the money to the Maxwell pensioners which they donated to it some time ago.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 November 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd November 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Court of Auditors

    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister what response he proposes to make to the latest report of the EC Court of Auditors; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom welcomes the Court of Auditors’ report for 1993; its findings and recommendations will assist in the fight against fraud and financial mismanagement and in favour of better value-for-money. The United Kingdom has been in the lead in pressing the Commission and the European Parliament to attack fraud and improve financial management. We secured important improvements in the treaty on European union, including giving the European Court of Auditors enhanced status as a full Institution of the European Union. The United Kingdom has also pushed for better value for money in Community expenditure.

    Following on from the Edinburgh European Council conclusions, the 1993 structural funds regulations required, for the first time, prior appraisal of expenditure, effective monitoring and evaluation of results. In March of this year, the United Kingdom proposed a joint action to ensure that member states make legally binding commitments to take tougher action against criminal fraud. The United Kingdom also supports the principles of a proposal from the Commission for a complementary framework of financial penalty rules and wants to see these principles carried through effectively. Both proposals are currently under discussion.

    The European Court of Auditors’ report will be considered by the Council of the Ministers early next year. The United Kingdom will urge that its findings are followed up vigorously by the Commission and member states; that appropriate action is taken; and that the Commission reports back fully on the results.

    As I said last week, following the Anglo-French summit at Chartres, we shall press for the Council of Ministers to act on the court’s special reports on particular areas of the Community budget and we wish to see member states co-operate in taking tougher action against criminal fraud. We also wish to see the Commission step up its spot checks for fraud and fraudsters; the European parliament as a whole, rather than just its budgetary control committee, act on fraud; and we are in touch with the German presidency to see how we can use the Essen European Council to add further momentum to the fight against fraud.

     

    European Union (Finance)

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister what provisions exist to ensure that the obligations entered into between European Union member states in matters related to the European Communities (Finance) Bill are honoured.

    The Prime Minister: The purpose of the European Communities (Finance) Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to give effect to a new own resources decision. The British Government, and the Governments of all other member states, committed themselves politically to the financial arrangements which are the basis of the own resources decision by a settlement at the Edinburgh Council, during the British presidency in 1992.

    The relevant arrangements for giving legal effect to this international agreement are set out in article 201 of the treaty establishing the European Community which states that:

    “The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, shall lay down provisions relating to the system of Own Resources of the Community, which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.” National procedures for adoption are a matter for each member state. In the United kingdom, the practice is to ask for Parliament’s approval by means of a Bill adding the new own resources decision to the list of relevant “Treaties” in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

    When all member states have notified adoption of the new own resources decision, it will enter force, retrospectively if necessary, with effect from 1 January 1995. Once in force, member states will be under a legally binding obligation to make contributions to the Community budget in accordance with the new own resources decision.

  • PMQT – 22 November 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd November 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hutton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.

    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. Hutton: Does the Prime Minister agree with the deputy chairman of the Conservative party that huge salary rises for the directors of privatised companies cause real public offence? What action is he going to take to stop these abuses?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say on many occasions in the past, I do not agree with excessive and unjustifiable salary increases. I have made that perfectly clear, but for companies within the private sector that must be a matter for their shareholders and not for the Government.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.

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

    Mr. Bellingham: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will press ahead with extending choice in education? While welcoming the Opposition’s recent conversion to league tables, does he agree that the Opposition’s plans to abolish grant-maintained schools and assisted places means that they can never be trusted on education because they are still wedded to the failed policies of the 1970s?

    The Prime Minister: I believe that the performance tables have been a huge success. Anyone who looked at any of the national newspapers today would see the enormous interest in them. They are printed in many cases in full and I think that parents are very glad to have the information. I very much welcome the belated recognition by the Opposition that they are now in favour of performance tables. I regret that they opposed them for so long. I also regret the fact that they continue to oppose grant-maintained schools and the assisted places scheme and I look forward to yet a further U-turn in their education policy to adopt them in due course.

    Mr. Blair: Yesterday the President of the Board of Trade justified the grotesque increase of £200,000 to the chief of British Gas. Will the Prime Minister now join me in condemning it unequivocally?

    The Prime Minister: I indicated to the right hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friend just a few moments ago that I did not approve of excessive increases. I also made the point that in the private sector that was a matter for the shareholders of the company, not a matter for the Government themselves but, since the right hon. Gentleman asks for my view, I have made it clear.

    Mr. Blair: As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman did not condemn the particular increase. Will he not understand that people want him to speak, not only for the shareholders but for the millions of British people who feel disgust and outrage at this excess and greed? Why will he not act to give the regulator the power to put a stop to this kind of abuse so that the privatised utilities, which are monopoly services that the public have no choice but to use, are managed as proper public services, run in the public interest?

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the monopoly aspect, presumably he will support the Gas Bill, which will introduce competition, later this Session. In the light of what he has just said, I look forward to his support for that. As for condemning the increase, I suggest that he looks again at what I have said on many occasions over the past few years. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the regulator’s position. The prices charged by utilities are legitimately a matter for the regulators but, as in all companies, boardroom pay is a matter for the shareholders. The sooner Opposition Members understand that, the better.

    Mr. McLoughlin: During his busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider the pay increase of about 200 per cent. for a person who is about to join the Commission gravy train? When that appointment was made, was it because the former Leader of the Opposition was the only candidate that the Opposition could put forward, or was there a shortage of candidates for the post, making such a pay increase necessary?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman to whom my hon. Friend refers is to be a Commissioner, and as such he will represent the United Kingdom. I think that he will do that fairly and honestly in the future, and I do not therefore have any criticism of his appointment.

    Mr. Ashdown: Why does not the Prime Minister see the 75 per cent. pay increase for the head of British Gas for what it is–a metaphorical V-sign to all the customers whose prices he has increased, to the employees whose jobs he has cut and to the Prime Minister’s begging and pleading for restraint? Is a weak whimper and a “Nothing to do with me, guv,” the best that the Prime Minister can do?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, as usual, exercises before the House his customary ignorance of the way in which the private sector works. I have made it absolutely clear what I think about that rise, but what the right hon. Gentleman–and, no doubt, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)–wants is a quasi-pay policy for some executives in the private sector. That, effectively, is what the right hon. Gentleman is asking for. The right way to deal with the matter is for the shareholders who own the company to take the action that they consider right.

    Mr. Budgen: In view of my right hon. Friend’s statement that the successful passage of the European Communities (Finance) Bill is a matter of confidence, will he confirm that he has discussed the Dissolution with the monarch? Will he further confirm that the monarch has told him that in the event of his asking for a Dissolution, it will be granted?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend, who has been here for a long time, should know, neither I nor any other Prime Minister is likely to discuss any conversation that he or she may or may not have had with Her Majesty the Queen.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.

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

    Mrs. Clwyd: Has the Prime Minister anything to add to the Maples memorandum, which says that the Government have broken their promises and let down the electors, and that they are out of touch, stupid and blind?

    The Prime Minister: I am tempted to quote from the memorandum by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who had some very crisp things to say about the Labour party–but no doubt the hon. Lady would find that unfortunate. [Interruption.] Yes, I have something to add. I add that, with growth at more than 4 per cent., inflation at 2 per cent., unemployment falling and exports growing at record levels, the hon. Lady would be most unwise to assume what may happen in future.

     

    Q4. Mr. Alexander: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.

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

    Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend commend to the House the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary over the weekend that there would no longer be an automatic right of temporary release for prisoners serving sentences? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when a judge sentences someone to a term of imprisonment, the public do not expect to find that person taken out to dinner by prison officers and do not expect to find another person cycling through the community two years into a rape conviction, and that a sentence of imprisonment must mean just that?

    The Prime Minister: I very much welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said last week. It is the latest in a long list of measures, crowned by the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to protect the public and to punish the criminal — [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) seems unwilling to punish the criminal. That is not what I should have expected of him. We should certainly clamp down on any examples of abuse of home leave or temporary release. That is precisely what my right hon. and learned Friend has said he proposes to do. In that he will, I believe, have the overwhelming support of people throughout the country.

    Mr. Dalyell: Are the Government’s certainties hitherto about Libyan responsibility for the Lockerbie crime in any way dented by what President Mubarak said to the Prime Minister yesterday or, indeed, by the film of Mr. Alan Francovitch, a copy of which was delivered to Downing street on Sunday and which, I gather, the right hon. Gentleman has looked at?

    The Prime Minister: None of the evidence I have had and none of the conversations I have had dent in the slightest the position that I have set out before the House on many occasions.

     

    Q5. Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.

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

    Mr. Winterton: Although I fervently hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget next week will give the necessary boost to manufacturing industry by introducing 100 per cent. capital allowances, will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that unemployment is down by half a million, that inflation is at an all-time 27-year low and that growth in this country is currently at 4 per cent.? Will he ensure that that information forms part of a highly confidential Conservative central office memorandum so that the press and the Conservative yobs can give it the attention it deserves?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point in his usual crisp manner. It is the case that the economy is doing extremely well, as my hon. Friend has set out. I hope that more people will begin to observe that as month succeeds month. There is no doubt that added to the list that my hon. Friend so accurately mentioned a moment ago are the facts that unemployment is falling and has been falling for around 20 months, that unemployment is lower here than in any other major country in western Europe and that unemployment is continuing to fall here while it is rising in many other countries. The economic opportunities that exist at the moment are extremely good and I have no doubt that they will get better.

     

    Cyprus

    Q6. Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the President of Cyprus; and what issues were discussed.

    The Prime Minister: I last met the President of Cyprus, Mr. Clerides, in October 1993 at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. We discussed Commonwealth matters and the state of the intercommunal discussions on Cyprus. I shall meet the President again in January on his next visit to London.

    Mr. Cox: I note that reply. Is the Prime Minister, aware, however, of the scathing criticisms that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has recently made about Mr. Denktash and his total unwillingness to enter any meaningful discussions on Cyprus? As this country is one of the guarantor powers, when will the Prime Minister himself become actively involved in Cyprus affairs in the hope of promoting a settlement that both Mr. Denktash and his friends and supporters in Ankara will be expected to honour?

    The Prime Minister: I am, of course, aware of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I continue to believe that the main focus of our effort should be to support the United Nations Secretary-General’s mission. He has made some progress. The Security Council called for further effort on confidence-building measures in June, as the hon. Gentleman will know, and for a process of consultation. That latter aspect has been given effect by means of face-to-face talks between the two community leaders. I hope that those will continue. We will do all that we can to persuade both sides to continue talking, but until and unless they are themselves prepared to reach an agreement, it is difficult to see how one can be imposed.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 November.

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

    Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend keep telling everyone about the low inflation, the falling unemployment and the strong growth? Will he also explain that we have achieved that by establishing an extremely successful economic framework and that, as night follows day, Labour would wreck it?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right, both in the scenario that he sets out and in the charge that he lays about such economic policy as the Labour party has yet divulged. There is no doubt that the present circumstance has come about because of a consistency of policy for some time designed to get inflation down. We made it clear in 1990 that getting inflation down to a low level had a very important, central part to play in economic management and we have achieved it. The Labour party achieved record high inflation. We are achieving record low inflation.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 November 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st November 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Al Yamamah Agreement

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for publication in the Official Report of a copy of the letter on the Al Yamamah agreement with Saudi Arabia to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent referred to in his answer of 3 November, Official Report, column 1257 .

    The Prime Minister: No. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

     

    Cabinet Meetings

    Mr. Boateng: To ask the Prime Minister whether the fact that a given Cabinet Minister has or has not attended a given meeting of the full Cabinet is a matter of public record.

    The Prime Minister: It is not normal practice to publish details of attendance at Cabinet.

     

    Security Services Committee

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will give the names and Departments of the proposed Clerks to the Committee relating to the security services.

    The Prime Minister: As stated by my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Cabinet Office will provide the support staff for the committee on the intelligence and security services, Official Report, 22 February 1994, column 247 .

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what expenditure has been allocated and under which vote for 1994-95 for the committee on the security services;

    (2) if the committee on security services will be able to travel abroad to take evidence.

    The Prime Minister: The expenditure for the intelligence services committee has been allocated under the Cabinet Office vote, class XIX. The annual cost of the committee is expected to be approximately £100,000. As my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, explained — Official Report, 22 February 1994, column 247 – this sum will be met from within existing provision. It includes provision for foreign travel where necessary for the committee to fulfil its functions.

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects the committee on the security services (a) to meet and (b) to submit its first report to him; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Subject to the provisions of the Act, the committee will determine its own procedure. The date of the first meeting will therefore be a matter for the chairman and the committee. The committee is required to make an annual report to me on the discharge of its functions.

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister (1) when he expects to give evidence to the committee on the security services;

    (2) what restrictions there are on the people from whom the committee on the security services will be able to hear evidence.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the statements made by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office – my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) — Official Report, Standing Committee E, 24 March 1994, columns 250 54; 29 March 1994, columns 259 60; and Official Report, 27 April 1994, columns 336 37. I have nothing further to add.

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will now name the hon. Members who are on the parliamentary committee relating to the security services.

    The Prime Minister: I have been in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), over the membership of the committee and expect to be able to make an announcement shortly.

     

    Small Business Bureau

    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Prime Minister what hospitality he has provided at 10 Downing Street for the Small Business Bureau since April 1992.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Youth Policy

    Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Prime Minister what steps the Government takes to co-ordinate youth policy.

    The Prime Minister: Matters affecting young people are dealt with by the Government Department which has the responsibility for the specific issue involved. Where policy matters involve a number of Departments’ interests, Government Departments work closely together.

     

    Ministerial Travel

    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister how many overseas visits he has made as Prime Minister; and during how many of those visits he has undertaken fund-raising activities for the Conservative Party.

    The Prime Minister: I have made 83 overseas visits as Prime Minister. Fund-raising activities for the Conservative Party are not part of my official duties.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Joint Israel Appeal / Jewish Continuity Dinner – 21 November 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Joint Israel Appeal and Jewish Continuity Dinner, made on Monday 21st November 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    This is a charity dinner, an event founded on high ideals. And as I look around, I see people who are known and respected for their ideals and their outstanding public service. I am hugely privileged to be your guest tonight.

    I would like to say a word or two about those ideals, because I think they are very important.

    I would also like to say a word on the relationship between the United Kingdom and Israel which, in my view – and I know that Prime Minister Rabin won’t mind me saying that it is his view as well – has never been warmer, and never had so much content.

    Then perhaps I may touch on the politics of the Middle East.

    Joint Israel Appeal/Jewish Continuity/Jewish Values

    First, this is a dinner to support the Joint Israel Appeal and Jewish Continuity.

    It is no surprise to find an old friend, Trevor Chinn, presiding over the Appeal. Trevor is one of those people who seem to be everywhere and deeply involved in everything – and yet still to have the capacity for more. We all owe him a great deal.

    I understand that the Appeal brings help to around 11/2 million people every year – to the young and the old, the disadvantaged and the infirm.

    That is an astonishing figure, but it is also entirely typical of the Jewish capacity for self-help and good works. I am told – and I hope soon to see this for myself – that there is hardly a public building or park, or even a forest, in Israel which has not been created through funding from public-spirited individuals and bodies such as yourselves.

    I can fully share Churchill’s sentiment when he said:

    “I was very glad to have had the experience of watching the life and work of the Jewish community in England. There is a high sense of corporate responsibility in the community, a great sense of duty.”

    At the Lord Mayor’s Banquet exactly a week ago, I expressed concern at irresponsible attacks on our institutions, and at the way in which respect for public service was being undermined. So my eye was caught – in a note on Jewish Continuity from the Chief Rabbi’s office – by a very similar sentiment:

    “the institutions which framed our public life and gave us a sense of belonging have come under assault.”

    They have. And it’s dangerous. And it should stop. It is easy to tear things down. It is much more difficult to build them up.

    Jewish Continuity stresses the central importance of the values which have inspired and united Jewish people over two thousand years.

    It stresses education – and how appropriate that the Israeli Minister of Education, Professor Rubinstein, a great friend of Britain, should be here this evening.

    It underlines duty, honesty, service, neighbourliness, and the virtues of working together in local communities. It sees the risks of selfishness and isolation in our rapidly changing world.

    And it points up the way in which the family has always been at the heart of Jewish life, the institution on which all others depend.

    Jewish Continuity is an admirable initiative by the Chief Rabbi, now being carried forward by Dr Michael Sinclair and his team. I am delighted that it has attracted such strong support. I hope it will go from strength to strength.

    Britain and Israel

    The values we share form a bond between Britain and Israel. So, too, does the extraordinary network of personal connections which this dinner reflects. Moshe Raviv may have only a small staff in his Embassy – but he has thousands of personal ambassadors for Israel throughout the community. And they are also ambassadors for Britain in Israel.

    But events, and the determined efforts of many individuals on both sides, have brought us much closer together over the past few years – closer, as I have said, than we have ever been before.

    This was brought home to me most strongly only a month ago.

    My latest meeting with Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin took place on the evening of 18 October, before he too spoke at a dinner of the Joint Israel Appeal. Sitting in Downing Street, we compared notes on the problems we had both faced confronting terrorism. We talked about extremist attempts to undermine the peace process in the Middle East. Mr. Rabin expressed his utter determination not to let terrorism move Israel from its chosen, and courageous, course.

    That determination was tested, and not found wanting, early the following morning. He rang to say that Israel had suffered its worst outrage in sixteen years, and he was going to have to return immediately to deal with it. He said that he was not going to let the process be derailed. There were people who did not want the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Jordanians and their other neighbours to live in peace. They were not going to prevail.

    And they have not prevailed. Jews and Israelis have suffered atrociously, from the attack in Buenos Aires, the attack on Moshe Raviv’s Embassy here and the bombing of Balfour House – where the Joint Israel Appeal has its British headquarters.

    We must all stand firm against such actions. The British Government intends to protect all of its citizens. The Jewish community needs to be secure and to feel secure. There can be no relaxation of vigilance and there will not be.

    And the peace process has continued to move forward. Only days after the Tel Aviv bus bomb, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein signed the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan on their border in the Arava desert. A British Minister, Douglas Hogg, was there to show our support.

    And in the centre of Tel Aviv, I am told that Dizengoff Street is already back to business as usual.

    That is the way to show the men of violence that they will never win.

    Terrorism knows no national boundaries. It is a threat to the rule of law everywhere, and to the democratic forms that Britain and Israel cherish.

    But it is not only tragedies which have brought us so close together.

    Since President Herzog’s visit to London under two years ago, a whole series of events has strengthened and extended the friendship between Britain and Israel.

    The Duke of Edinburgh’s visit last month, to receive a citation in honour of his mother from Yad Vashem, was particularly poignant.

    And two of my Cabinet Ministers have just been to Israel to break new ground, and have returned full of enthusiasm.

    David Hunt went out to create new links in science and technology. And that is not the only thing he seems to have promoted. Sometimes Ministers come back from trips looking a little weary and jetlagged. But David came back in the pink, bursting with ruddy good health. Not only had he been swimming in the Dead Sea, but I gather that he also practically ran up and down Massada.

    Science is very important to both countries, and we are both extremely good at it. Indeed Israel has more scientists per head than any other country. Now we have set up a UK/Israel Science and Technology Research Fund. And it has already attracted nearly 200 first class applications from top British and Israeli researchers who want to work together.

    Already we are exploring joint projects at the leading edge of science and technology – in lasers, electro-optics, medical biotechnology, and other – ologies too numerous to mention.

    No sooner had David Hunt come back than Malcolm Rifkind went out. Malcolm was the first British Defence Secretary ever to visit Israel.

    For many years, our defence relations were constrained. When I told Yitzhak Rabin how delighted I was at the visit of the Israeli Chief of Staff, General Barak, he reminded me that he himself had paid the last visit to Britain by a Chief of Staff – and that was in 1965.

    We are now in a very different ball game. Israeli officers are attending British staff colleges. Royal Navy ships are making regular port calls to Israel. HMS Cornwall, on its way home from the Armilla patrol, has just paid the first visit by a naval ship for many years to Eilat.

    And earlier this year, responding to the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho, I removed the embargo on sales of defence equipment. The way is now open for responsible two-way trade in a sector in which both countries excel.

    The experiences of my colleagues have only whetted my appetite for the visit to Israel which I have long wanted to make.

    The prospects for British/Israeli cooperation are very great and I intend to explore them fully.

    I want to see us working ever more closely together for stability in the Middle East.

    I want Britain to continue to sponsor closer ties between Israel and the European Union – as we did during the recent renegotiation of Israel’s co-operation agreement with the EU.

    I want us to keep up our strong cultural and educational links.

    We have thriving British Council and FCO scholarship programmes, some of which are funded in partnership with Jewish philanthropists.

    The British Council is tremendously active in Israel. They are working with Professor Rubinstein’s Education Ministry to upgrade the skills of English language teachers throughout Israel.

    Though Israeli visitors should not be deterred from coming to the theatre in London, as they do in droves, I am delighted that the Royal National Theatre and British musical groups have visited Israel this year – adding to the quarter of a million British tourists and other visitors who will go there.

    Not least, I want to promote trade. Trade between Britain and Israel is soaring upwards. British exports went up by 50 per cent last year and a further 22 per cent so far this year. Israel is Britain’s third largest market in the Middle East. A British company, Isrotel, has built hotels in Eilat. Rover are starting to sell their cars with much success. New companies are coming into the market. Seventy visited Israel for the first time last year. And millions of people in Britain eat food from Israel and wear clothes made there for firms like Marks and Spencers.

    But we can do much more together. So, when I go to Israel in March, I shall be taking with me a party of senior businessmen, some of whom are here tonight. Some are already important players in the Israeli market. Some will be new to it. I want them to see, with me, the opportunities for trade and investment which undoubtedly exist.

    The Middle East

    I promised to say a few words about the politics of the Middle East.

    Many of the differences between the Arabs and the Israelis which for years seemed irreconcilable are now melting away.

    It is no longer fanciful to think of a return to the long-distant period evoked by Balfour when he opened the Hebrew University.

    He recalled:

    “That in the darkest days of the darkest ages, when Western civilisation appeared almost extinct, smothered under barbaric influences, it was the Jews and Arabs in combination, working together, who greatly aided the first sparks which illuminated that gloomy period”.

    We have seen remarkable illumination since I spoke to some of you at the dinner of the Board of Deputies in March last year.

    Then, no bilateral agreements had been reached between Palestinians and Israelis.

    Now we have seen the first birthday of the Declaration of Principles.

    We have seen the Cairo Agreement on autonomy for Gaza and Jericho.

    The Arab boycott is visibly on its way out. Israel now has diplomatic relations with 148 countries. At the Casablanca Conference earlier this month, Israeli and Arab Ministers joined Europeans and Americans to work together for a brighter economic future for the region as a whole.

    It took vision and great courage to achieve the breakthrough. The Nobel Committee will soon be honouring Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon. Perez and Yasser Arafat in Oslo. And rightly so.

    But they will need our continuing support in carrying the process forward.

    Last Friday’s disturbing events in Gaza make it all the more vital to sustain progress in the Palestinian autonomy, and to help the new authorities there. The Palestinians need to see that terrorism and violence bring no gain, but that tangible benefits will come from the peace process.

    For our part, we are accelerating Britain’s aid to them. We also hope that our Israeli friends will help to provide as much employment as possible within Israel; and will allow the import of aid-related equipment into the Palestinian areas, and the transfer of tax revenues collected on behalf of the Palestinians.

    The Palestinians themselves must streamline their administration so that they can absorb the aid which the international community is offering. And we must do all we can to encourage private sector investment there.

    The success of the peace process depends heavily on moderate Palestinian leaders, and we should all redouble our efforts to help them.

    After the Treaty between Israel and Jordan, I hope there will soon be a breakthrough on the Syrian track.

    The prize for Syria is clear: the return of the Golan.

    The prize for Israel is equally great: a binding agreement with the last immediate neighbour which could threaten her security. And that security, self-evidently, is crucial for every Israeli.

    There are of course still serious threats to the stability of the Middle East, which affect us all. We have had a very recent reminder, when Saddam Hussein chose once again to menace Kuwait. The immediate reaction from Britain, the United States and other countries, at the United Nations and in our case also deploying troops, ships and aircraft, will have left him in no doubt, I trust, of our resolve.

    When our friends in the region are threatened, we shall come to their help to the limits of our ability. Where there is aggression, we shall oppose it.

    Saddam has now recognised Kuwait’s sovereignty and the border demarcated by the United Nations. That is a step forward, and owes much to the determination and diplomacy of the coalition partners. But it is not enough. We have no basis for trusting Saddam Hussein. Iraq must comply rigorously with all the requirements of the Security Council: on weapons of mass destruction, on compensation, on prisoners of war and so on.

    The international community must accept nothing less.

    Nor can we relax our vigilance towards Iraq’s neighbour, Iran.

    Iran has sought by every means to undermine the peace process. Time and time again, Iran has been implicated in subversion and terrorism. Her record on human rights, like Iraq’s, is wholly unacceptable.

    I do not dispute Iran’s importance and potential. I have nothing but sympathy for the ordinary people of that country, as of Iraq. But the Iranian regime must draw only one conclusion. It will be judged by its actions, by the rules of the international community, and by the norms of civilised behaviour.

    Conclusion

    Let me end on a brighter note.

    For most of its history, the modern state of Israel has been under threat.

    And for many of the 77 years since the Balfour Declaration, Israel and the United Kingdom have had a schizophrenic relationship. We have been bound together by ties of blood and personal friendship; but sometimes parted by political disagreements.

    Now Israel is taking her rightful place in her own region. And she is at the same time drawing ever closer to Britain and to our partners in Europe.

    Britain’s friendship with Israel does not compete with our relations with other countries in the Middle East.

    They are complementary.

    They contribute to peace in the Middle East.

    They will contribute to the development of the region as a whole.

    And a Middle East at peace with itself – something we have not seen in living memory – will be a place we want to visit and to invest in.

    Through Jewish Continuity, you are sustaining the faith and the ideals which Churchill described as “a precious thing, a bond of union, an inspiration and a source of strength”.

    And through the Joint Israel Appeal, you are giving remarkable support – not politically, not to the State, but to ordinary people in Israel. In many cases, to people who have arrived from other countries with little or nothing, coming to a safe haven and the land of their forefathers.

    For every contributor to your appeal here this evening, there are, I know, many thousands outside.

    Thank you for your welcome and your invitation.

    Thank you, too, for your resilience in the face of difficulties and danger this year.

    I wish you all possible success in your efforts for Jewish Continuity and the Joint Israel Appeal.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference in Chartres – 18 November 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Mitterrand, held in Chartres on Friday 18th November 1994.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I will start by giving you some elements of our conclusions and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will then add to these remarks.

    This was the 17th Franco-British summit. This Chartres summit was mainly geared to a certain number of European questions which are important, some of the really important international problems, on the development of the war in Bosnia, for example, and also matters of defence. That is not a comprehensive list, there is more, but I am telling you what the main themes were.

    On the European matters, we ran through the main issues of the day, the preparation of the Essen European Council meeting, the European summit, also the orientations of the up-coming French Presidency. Of course work has started, in fact in depth thinking has been started too and representatives of the Prime Minister and myself have discussed these matters at length and therefore we are completely ready to start the next phase on 1 January next.

    And we think it is essential to inform our British partners of this and of course our British colleague added his own remarks. The preparation also of the intergovernmental conference in 1996, this is a very important date and the preparation for this has been somewhat delayed by a series of political events in the domestic area. And lastly, but I repeat this is not an exhaustive list, we also talked about the future enlargements of the Union.

    I think we agreed in considering with the Prime Minister that the urgent thing was to consolidate what we had already achieved. That does not mean that we refuse to examine the way documents should be changed, that text should be changed and practices and customers too, each time that is necessary. But it would perhaps be a mistake to try to move yet even further forward without having consolidated what we had already achieved. That being said, we remain entirely open to suggestions from our partners.

    On international affairs, as I said before, the discussion was mainly-on Bosnia. I imagine that you have questions on that, therefore I will keep my explanations for later on.

    On defence, first we have clarified a decision which I think is very important and significant for the future, on the setting up of a Franco-British Euro-air Group. The purpose of the exercise is to train, to prepare in other words, our Air Forces to work together, to get them used to this, and in particular with regard to humanitarian operations and peace-keeping and peace-making operations. For example, there was a statement made in [indistinct] by the Western European Union in which these points were mentioned. And I think this project, because we want to move forward in pragmatic terms, a Europe .of defence, this group will be established in the UK at High Wycombe. The first Commander of the group will be a French Air Force General.

    And then another subject was the prevention and settlement of conflicts in Africa. But I have noticed, and I was very happy to note, Prime Minister, if I may say so, I was delighted to see that we have to some extent emerged from the situation that we were in in 1904, it is a bit late in the day but we have made progress. So we decided anyway to pursue cooperation between the two countries and with particular regard to preventive diplomacy. The idea is to give logistic and other support to the African countries which in the framework of action carried out in particular by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), on the basis of a mandate from the United Nations, or to the extent the OAU would ask for this, we have just emerged ourselves from a meeting with our African partners and I am delighted to see the cooperation among us, among these two countries which have great experience in Africa, that such cooperation is moving forward, and I particularly appreciate the contribution of the UK in this respect.

    Next, cooperation as far as armaments are concerned, well you are already informed of this, the tripartite frigate with Italy, the UK, France, the so-called new generation, also known as the Horizon Project. That is the vocabulary, our British friends are always at the front of the pack, but these are important things. So this is very satisfactory, I think more forward, than the military for the future FLA, the future large aircraft. Here obviously transport capacity has to be developed and on a European basis. This aircraft is the object of the project and several other countries are already associated, including Germany, Italy and Spain.

    It has been agreed to set up a study group, trusted with the task of looking specifically at the possible participation of the UK in this project. But I want to emphasise in speaking to our British friends, and in their presence, the precise importance that we attach to this project.

    In the nuclear field we have reasserted the intention of both sides to strengthen cooperation between our two countries. I made a remark earlier which is not a restrictive remark, because I personally very much intend to see the development of more and more cooperation, which will be the very foundation of European security, because can you imagine European security without the support of nuclear forces, that would be illusory. Nuclear deterrence remains an essential element of our defence policies and the more our defence policies are one single defence policy the better that would be.

    In economic and financial affairs I just mention in passing, the most striking feature was confirmation of the economic recovery under way. It appeared necessary to emphasise the implementation of the measures decided in Naples on the debt of the poorest countries, 67 percent was the figure mentioned.

    Also, because curiously there is some talk of this, the question of the ratification of the GATT agreement, a discussion of this. It is not that we have become less enthusiastic spectators of all this, but what has been achieved has been achieved and has been done. And our officials have spent enough time and trouble to get these agreements through, it would really be rather a pity to have to come back on all this, I think it is in everyone’s interest.

    So those are the few remarks I wanted to say at the outset before asking Mr Major and Mr Balladur if they would like to add a few words which would add to my brief summary of what we have done.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it will be apparent from what the President of the Republic has said that we have had an extremely productive summit, not just in the discussions that I have been privileged to have with the President and Prime Minister, but those which my colleagues have had with their counterparts in a range of different areas.

    Can I firstly say how grateful I am to the President, to the Prime Minister and to the people of Chartres for their hospitality on this occasion, it has been a delight to be here and also extremely useful.

    Let me pick up some of the points that the President has made. What has been apparent from our discussions today is that the interests of Britain and France coincide in a very wide range of areas, we have reached specific agreements today on a number of matters. Let me add a point to some of those that the President has mentioned.

    We have agreed today on the formation of a Franco-British Euro-Air Group. This is a natural development I think from our long-standing defence cooperation. The group’s headquarters will be at High Wycombe in England. The first Commander of the Group will be a French General and thereafter command of the group will alternate between British and French officers.

    Britain and France are the only two European members of NATO with the capability significantly to project military power overseas. And the new group will allow us to coordinate our Air Forces so that we can set up more speedily combined operations in peace-keeping or in humanitarian missions.

    We have also agreed to work together in another area where we have a self-evident joint interest, and that is of course in peace-keeping in Africa. In September in the South African Parliament I announced an initiative to help African countries develop further their peace-keeping capabilities. The French government, quite separately, had put forward very similar ideas. What we have agreed today is that our approaches are compatible and that we will now take them forward together with our African partners.

    We discussed also military matters, as the President has said. Specifically on military transport aircraft, I explained to the President and to the Prime Minister that British requirements fell into two quite different parts. The first was that part of our present Hercules fleet is very near the end of its operational life. We shall need to decide very soon whether to refurbish these aircraft or to buy a number of Hercules 0130J replacements to meet our immediate needs. But secondly, and as a quite separate matter, we shall need to consider our longer term requirement for similar aircraft and we are interested in exploring whether participation in the future large aircraft project would be a possible way of meeting this longer term requirement. And so to help in this I have today agreed with our French hosts that a group of senior experts from both our governments should be tasked to study possible British participation in the future large aircraft, it is without commitment but I think it is entirely right that we should examine it carefully to see the extent to which our military and our economic needs might coincide, and the extent to which, provided they do and a satisfactory agreement can be reached, that we may proceed together in this particular project.

    In the fairly wide ranging discussions we had on Europe I underlined one very high priority for Britain and was delighted to find that this was fully shared by the French government. I refer to the absolute necessity to crack down on fraud, waste and mis-management in the European Union that has been set out so clearly in the Court of Auditors Report over recent-days. Fraud in the European Union is not a fresh problem, it is not a concern that has just suddenly arisen for us, we had examined it before, we have looked at it before. The Maastricht Treaty gave the Court of Auditors new powers to uncover fraud and we intend to back the Commission fully, and the Court of Auditors fully, in using those powers. There is no doubt, following the Court of Auditors report, that there is a job to be done. First, we would like to see the Commission step up its flying inspection squads to detect fraud and fraudsters. That is an area where there should be no qualms whatsoever in any quarter about backing the Commission in the work that it has to do. And secondly, as I set out in my speech in Leiden some months ago, the European Parliament as a whole needs to act on fraud and I propose to pursue this with the President of the European Parliament. And third, we will insist at Essen that the Council acts on the Court’s special reports on particular areas of the budget and we wish to see member states cooperating in taking tougher action against criminal fraud, and I believe that is very much in the interests of taxpayers right across the European Union and particularly of course in Germany, France and Britain, the three largest net contributors to the European Union budget. And fourthly on this issue, we are in fact already in touch with the German Presidency to see how we can use the Essen European Council to add yet further momentum to the war against fraud, and I was delighted to discover today that our French colleagues not only agree with us on the need to take action like this, but also will regard this as a matter of importance to them in the French Presidency that begins on 1 January next year.

    We discussed, as the President said, a wide range of other domestic and international matters, the President mentioned Bosnia, there were many others he could have mentioned as well. I think rather than deal with all those at this stage, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have in a few moments time. So I will end my comments at this point.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I asked Mr Balladur, the French Prime Minister, whether he would have anything to add, he said not for the time being. We will therefore proceed to the traditional exchange of questions and answers. But I would like to say, not simply for reasons of courtesy, how grateful I am to the British delegation and to Mr Major, the British Prime Minister, for the way they have approached and undertaken the Franco-British talks. I have found that the climate that has prevailed today has been of the best that I have seen in the past few years and I wish to thank them for that. I wish also to thank Chartres, Mr George Le Moin [phon] its Mayor, for the welcome they have extended to us which has placed the summit in a context which, despite meteorological difficulties, has been particularly pleasant, and maybe accept our expression of gratitude.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, with reference to Bosnia, following the American withdrawal of the embargo monitoring unit, it would appear that the Americans are considering therefore the possibility of lifting the embargo on weapons to Bosnia. Do you subscribe to this or are you thinking about whether French troops should continue to be part of UNPROFOR?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    You may be right, you may be going a bit faster than events but if it is true that the Americans have announced that they wanted to change their line on Bosnia, in other words they are moving towards lifting the embargo and in that direction, it is by no means certain that they will actually go as far as providing weapons. According to some information we see in the press that would appear to be the case but that being said it is by no means certain, it may not happen at all.

    It is very difficult to talk with you about information which we actually don’t have and at present there is a curious ambiguity between the reality of what the American forces are doing there as American forces and the same American forces as members of NATO and therefore at the disposal of the UN. This sort of dual use of troops, will this last or not? I don’t know.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    As the President said, part of the question is based on information we don’t at the moment have. It is certainly the case that we do not favour lifting the arms embargo, that is undoubtedly the case, we think lift is a last resort: We are determined to ensure that it does not come to the situation where the embargo is lifted.

    We are in Bosnia as indeed France and other colleagues are in Bosnia to do a particular job; we are there to escort humanitarian aid and UK troops will stay there while they can do a useful job without unacceptable risk.

    What concerns us about lifting the embargo is that the logic of lift is that there will be more war; the consequence of that is that there will be more suffering. It is our judgement that a settlement will only come from negotiation. What concerns us is that lifting the embargo would unravel the approach that we have followed so we hope that it will not come to that.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I can but confirm what has just been said. I didn’t go into an explanation myself but we already had occasion to talk about this; with the French press, France is very much against – and the Foreign Minister has been explicit on this – the lifting of the embargo and it is difficult to announce conclusions and decisions that we don’t yet know about but it is certain that the problem of the presence of French forces – and we want them to stay with the international forces – will arise inevitably if there is a lifting of the embargo and maybe we will have to talk about this at a later stage.

    QUESTION:

    A question to you, President, and the British Prime Minister as well:

    Ultimately, given the information you have today, have you not reached the conclusion that you will not be able to withstand the American decision for much longer and will you take on the responsibility of keeping troops there, be they French or British, in situ especially if they are likely to come under fire from both sides?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I think I had already answered that question before you asked it. Will we be able to hang on for long? I don’t know. Our position is that we are certainly not going to leave our soldiers there caught between the two fires which you were mentioning.

    There is a question of principle; will that situation arise? We don’t know. Secondly, if it does arise, obviously the logistic and technical implications are quite considerable but now we are talking about the political aspect of the military options. It is clear that it doesn’t seem to us to be compatible to be on the one hand encouraging the people who are making war to make more intense war and then at the same time to leave our Loops in between them as sort of buffers which would be a purely fictitious situation. This in fact simply adds to what John Major said really on our behalf in a way and it is a difficult embroglio and obviously the answer is negotiation and we haven’t finished our negotiation yet.

    QUESTION (Nick Gowing, Channel 4 News)

    Could I ask you both what pressure you now plan to put on both the American Administration and the new American Congress to ensure your worst fears do not come to pass, that you are forced into this position of deciding whether to keep your troops in Bosnia or not?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    This isn’t a new problem or a new position. The position the British Government have taken over the lifting of the arms embargo is not a novel one, it has been known in Washington and known to Congress for a long time. That is the position and we will continue to sustain that position for the reasons I set out a few moments ago.

    We sent troops to Bosnia to do a particular job. It is very easy to look at the difficulties that still exist in Bosnia and forget what those difficulties might well have been if British troops, French troops and other troops had not been in Bosnia over the past two-and-a-half to three years. It is difficult to estimate what might have happened to the fighting, difficult to estimate how it might have spread, difficult to estimate how many people alive today might not have been alive but for the activities of the UN protection forces as a whole so clearly we sent them to do a particular job. I wish to see them complete that job.

    Self-evidently, we must look at the safety of the troops and their capacity to do their job in future. The right way for us to address that is for us to continue to argue what we believe is the rational case for proceeding with negotiations to try and find a settlement and for not lifting either collectively or unilaterally the arms embargo and we will continue to argue that case.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    We are awaiting confirmation. There is no divergence of interpretation between the British and the French but there is a certain amount of information that we haven’t really got yet that we need in greater depth. It is clear that it is easier for the Americans to withdraw their troops from Bosnia than us because they haven’t got any there anyway!

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    Prime Minister, given the uncertainties surrounding America’s future role in NATO and given the announcement today of the Anglo-French initiative, do you believe the time has come for urgent action in developing a European defence identity as something that should happen perhaps before the 1996 IGC, what form do you think it might take and do you have fewer reservations about a European defence dimension that you have about a European social dimension?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Let me pick up that point in some detail – uncertainties about the American position in NATO. I don’t believe there are any uncertainties about the American position in NATO. NATO remains the bedrock of our defence in the West and I think it is going to remain the bedrock of our defence in the West. Only within the last year or so President Clinton has re-confirmed his determination to leave 100,000 American troops on the mainland of Europe for the defence of Europe so I think nobody in looking at other areas of collaboration should doubt the primacy of the NATO Alliance, the permanence of the NATO Alliance or the importance of the NATO Alliance; it is absolutely fundamental to our future defence in the West and I do not believe anything can shake that.

    What does not follow from that is that there is not separately and in alliance with NATO – of which Britain, France and other western European countries are members – a capacity for further collaboration between western European NATO allies and that is what we have been doing in Bosnia of course, Britain and France in particular. It is what we anticipate we may well be called upon to do in the future in areas of peacekeeping and humanitarian aid; it is what underlies the decision today to establish the joint structure that we proposed.

    But defence is not a zero sum game. Because Britain and France are able to make greater cooperation wholly desirable – improved cooperation in my judgement – that does not in any sense detract from either our individual commitment to NATO or our joint commitment to NATO. It isn’t zero sum – it is a better use of our collective capability to defend ourselves within NATO and in some aspects as NATO partners bilaterally.

    QUESTION (Paul Taylor, Reuters):

    Mr, President and Mr. Prime Minister, how close are you would you say on the future of European institutions as they will come to be discussed at the 1996 intergovernmental conference and do you believe that 1996 should be a new re-founding act for Europe or a rather more modest incremental development of what was agreed at Maastricht?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I think that there would not be much point in repeating what has been said in Maastricht; the important thing is to do what we are supposed to do. If you look at the progress made in reality concerning the decisions at Maastricht I don’t think that we need an order of priority there but I think it is more important to implement what has been decided than to think up yet new ideas. Of course, any interesting suggestion will be looked at with interest by France but I think the priority is to first of all implement what we have already decided.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I entirely agree with that – the President made that point earlier in his remarks – that one needs to consolidate and deal with what was decided at Maastricht. I know there are some people who believe that there is – if I may borrow a Chinese phrase – likely to be a great leap forward in 1996. I don’t believe there is going to be a great leap forward in 1996 and I don’t know of any European head of government who does.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Mind you, it would be quite a leap forward to put into practice what one has decided to do! [Laughter]

    QUESTION:

    President and Prime Minister, I would like to come back for a moment to Bosnia. Do you not think that your public opinion will be surprised that President Clinton should have taken such a decision without informing you in some way or another insofar as you are often in touch with him, he is a privileged ally of yours, and the US is part of the Contact Group or do you explain this decision only in terms of American domestic policy?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    You know as much as I do about that, probably more on the problems of internal political affairs in the United States. It is clear that Mr. Clinton is faced with a new situation; he has a Congress that has been very clear about its intentions on Bosnia so I think the two issues can’t be separated from each other. It is difficult to say that because for months, even years, this debate has been going on and I think no-one was presumably taken by surprise in learning of the decisions taken in Washington but it is true that things have taken on a sort of new course and it seems to us to be a rather sort of brutal, sudden change of course, it is perhaps even a dangerous turning. It hasn’t been decided collectively, that is true, but that is the way things are and I am trying to be as clear in my answers as you were in your question.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I think much of the question spreads beyond “Sharpguard” and perhaps looks at other things that haven’t been decided so to that extent the question is based upon a premise that at the moment is not reality and in my experience the relationship and the consultation between the United States and her western European partners has been very good, is very good and I have no doubt is going to remain very good in future and I think, frankly, people have made rather too much of the particular issue of “Sharpguard”

    The work that “Sharpguard” was doing continues, other Western European Union navies are participating, there are eleven countries currently involved. The decision made by the United States has been overdramatised I think in some areas. It won’t significantly the operation and there were only two United States ships involved. I think to draw, as perhaps the questioner had in mind, rather wider conclusions from that is to draw conclusions that are not justified by the reality of what has happened.

    QUESTION (Richard Dowden, The Independent):

    Are the announcements made today about defence cooperation simple bilateral cooperation in interesting important areas but of no more significance than that or could they be the foundations and building blocks of a future possible European defence force?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    If I may pick up the point that underlies that question, Richard, it would be a suggestion that suddenly, uniquely and extraordinarily, Britain and France had decided to cooperate on some defence matters. I have to say to everyone present that that isn’t the case. The cooperation on defence matters between Britain and France is very substantial and has been very substantial for a very long time. We perhaps have more joint ventures and collaboration with France on defence matters than anyone else; that has been the case for a very long period. These are important developments but to draw the conclusion that these are developments of a wholly different nature from what we have seen before is I think going too far.

    We are looking as far as the future large aircraft is concerned at the possibility, all other things being equal, of a venture in which we will collaborate; we have done that before, there are other ventures going on at the moment that the President mentioned and that is very good. Certainly the establishment of the air group is a new but entirely rational development building on the cooperation that we have had before so rather than regarding it as some startling innovation I regard it as a further example of a growing level of defence cooperation that we have been privileged to enjoy with France for a long time and. I hope it will continue to grow.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    And in that respect I pointed that many of these projects have already been agreed to by a number of European countries so this isn’t always a specifically Franco-British approach in all fields. That being said, there is something specifically Franco-British in expressing the hope that it will serve European defence.

    QUESTION:

    A question, Mr. President, that may be of interest to your prime ministerial guest but to do with domestic policy. It has been suggested that a new referendum be held before we move on to economic and monetary union in 1997. I would like to hear your views on the matter.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Do you only mean mine?

    SAME LADY:

    And the views of the British Prime Minister which might be interesting as well but not the French Prime Minister. [Laughter].

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    It would be an impertinence to comment on French internal politics – not now nor in the future – but it was a very good try.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I think as far as referendums go, one mustn’t overdo these things. On that in particular, the decision has been taken by the French people themselves so I don’t really think that the matter is open for discussion quite honestly and as this concerns the very distant future anyway and I will certainly refrain from getting too much involved in that particular debate.