The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Comments on European Policy – 7 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on European policy, made during an interview given in London on Wednesday 7th December 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why the whip was withdrawn from some Conservative MPs].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you have to realise precisely why that happened. I reached an agreement – not me as an individual but as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – in 1992 on future finances of the Community. That agreement was endorsed by Cabinet, it got very wide support in the House of Commons, almost nobody criticised it across the floor or behind me. In 1994, we have to keep our word, we have to match the agreement with the legislation that enables that agreement to carry forward. Now suppose we have welched on that, suppose I had reached an agreement in 1992 and welched on it in 1994. How could I possibly have gone back to Europe and negotiated for 1996 in the intergovernmental conference? I simply couldn’t have done it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the decision had caused a split in the Conservative Party and if the MPs would have been more loyal if they still had the Conservative whip].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hear what you say about what they say. If the British Government gives its word, a British Government must keep its word and if a British Government is unable to keep its word then it cannot continue in office. That is not a very hard principle to grasp but it must be apparent to everybody that that was the position. We made it perfectly clear to our colleagues that that was the position and some of them chose not to support us. Clearly, that couldn’t be left where it was.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if this would be damaging to him].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I acted in the only way one could. If Members of Parliament vote against the Government on an issue that they know to be an issue of confidence, an issue that if we had lost it could have created a General Election, then you have to indicate that that isn’t satisfactory behaviour. If I had taken no action, you would have been asking me a quite different question; you would have been saying: “Why are you so weak as to let people vote against the Government on a three-line whip and perhaps wreck an agreement you had reached internationally?”.

    You know very well that if governments reach an agreement internationally, British Governments must keep their word. There can be no doubt about that, not now, nor at any stage in the future.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was in a no-win situation].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We had a second reading of the Bill in front of us. Let us suppose we had lost that second reading because people were not aware that this was an issue of confidence. We would now be facing a General Election. That would be the position we were in. I think my colleagues would have said to me: “Why didn’t you tell us that was the position?”, we did tell them that was the position. Most of them accepted that that was the position, they supported the Government and as a result the British Government has kept its word and in future when we negotiate people know that our word will be honoured. There is no doubt that that was the right thing to do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he agreed with some back-benchers that he had created this problem].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is patently absurd, isn’t it? I didn’t decide to vote against the Government. People knew precisely what this deal was, when I came back from Edinburgh they endorsed this deal, nobody complained about it then. The people who voted against us the other night, they haven’t complained in the interim. They knew very well what this deal was in 1992, they supported it in 1992. You cannot conduct government if you come back with an international agreement and your own party do not support that agreement. It was necessary to make that clear and when some chose not to support the Government it was inevitable that action was taken.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the CSCE Summit – 7 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Commons statement on the CSCE Summit from 7th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) I represented the United Kingdom at the summit meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in Budapest on 5 to 6 December, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    The meeting adopted the Budapest summit declaration; and separate declarations on the 50th Anniversary of the termination of world war II, and on Baltic issues. It also adopted 10 decisions on different aspects of the CSCE’s work.

    These decisions embraced strengthening the CSCE; regional issues; further development of the capabilities of the CSCE in conflict prevention and crisis management; code of conduct on politico-military aspects of security; further tasks of the CSCE forum for security co-operation; principles governing non-proliferation; a common and comprehensive security model for Europe for the 21st century; the human dimension; the economic dimension; and the Mediterranean.

    Copies of all of these documents will be placed in the Library of the House.

    The CSCE is no longer just a conference. Its role has widened since the end of the Cold War. Under the Budapest decision on “Strengthening the CSCE”, its title will change from 1 January 1995 to “The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, CSCE”. This change of title has been accompanied by some structural changes which are set out in the relevant decision.

    Among its other decisions, the summit:

    –initiated planning for a CSCE-led peace-keeping operation in Nagorno- Karabakh. Deployment of a multi-national CSCE peace-keeping force will depend on progress towards a political settlement, on United Nations Security Council backing, and on the requisite military preparation;

    –adopted measures to strengthen the CSCE in its central role of conflict prevention;

    –reinforced, as a result of a British initiative, the CSCE’s arrangements for dealing with the problem of minorities and other human rights questions;

    –set out standards for the democratic control of armed forces, in a new code of conduct;

    –added to military confidence building measures, including provisions for the exchange of information on all conventional forces.

    At a separate ceremony in Budapest on 5 December, Ukraine acceded to the non-proliferation treaty. On behalf of the United Kingdom, I extended to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine the nuclear security assurances which we have given in the past to other non-nuclear weapon states. Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin extended the same assurances on behalf of the United States of America and the Russian Federation.

    In the margins of the conference, I had discussions with many of the CSCE heads of Government, including the Presidents of the Czech Republic, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine and the United States; the German Federal Chancellor; and the Prime Ministers of Hungary, Norway and Turkey.

    The future development of the North Atlantic Alliance was one of the subjects mentioned in many speeches to the conference, and also during my bilateral meetings. It was a point of particular concern to the Russian delegation. I explained to President Yeltsin that our aim, which was widely supported by our partners in NATO and the European Union, was to extend to the east the prosperity and stability which members of the European Union and NATO now enjoy. That was why both organisations were developing their links with the countries of central and eastern Europe. NATO had commissioned a study of the principles of enlargement, but had taken no decisions yet on which countries might join the organisation or when. It was very important for NATO to build up its relationship with Russia, and we therefore hoped that the Russian Government would soon sign their agreement with NATO on the “Partnership for Peace” programme. It was common ground that there should be no new dividing line across Europe. The dominant political issue at the summit was the conflict in Bosnia. CSCE decisions are adopted by consensus, and because of differences of view between certain participants, a draft declaration on Bosnia was not adopted. However, the chairman of the conference spoke for many delegations in issuing, in his personal capacity, a call on all warring parties in Bosnia, and particularly in Bihac, to end the fighting, declare a ceasefire and allow free access of humanitarian assistance throughout Bosnia. My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, will be making a statement separately to the House on Bosnia, taking account of discussions during the Budapest summit.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 December 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EU Anti-fraud Budget

    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the size of the European Union’s anti- fraud budget.

    The Prime Minister: As I made clear following my meeting with the French Prime Minister at Chartres, I will insist that discussion of all aspects of fraud and irregularity against the Community budget is given a high priority at the Essen European Council.

     

    Security and Intelligence Services

    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the staff counsellor for the Security and Intelligence Services.

    The Prime Minister: Sir Philip Woodfield KCB CBE has served as staff counsellor for the Security and Intelligence Services since November 1987. He will retire from the post on 31 March 1995, and I express the Government’s gratitude to him for the way in which he has established this very sensitive post and fulfilled the duties of it. Sir Christopher France GCB, currently permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, will succeed him as staff counsellor from 1 April 1995.

     

    Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe

    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe summit in Budapest.

    The Prime Minister: I represented the United Kingdom at the summit meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in Budapest on 5 to 6 December, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    The meeting adopted the Budapest summit declaration; and separate declarations on the 50th Anniversary of the termination of world war II, and on Baltic issues. It also adopted 10 decisions on different aspects of the CSCE’s work.

    These decisions embraced strengthening the CSCE; regional issues; further development of the capabilities of the CSCE in conflict prevention and crisis management; code of conduct on politico-military aspects of security; further tasks of the CSCE forum for security co-operation; principles governing non-proliferation; a common and comprehensive security model for Europe for the 21st century; the human dimension; the economic dimension; and the Mediterranean.

    Copies of all of these documents will be placed in the Library of the House.

    The CSCE is no longer just a conference. Its role has widened since the end of the Cold War. Under the Budapest decision on “Strengthening the CSCE”, its title will change from 1 January 1995 to “The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, CSCE”. This change of title has been accompanied by some structural changes which are set out in the relevant decision.

    Among its other decisions, the summit:

    –initiated planning for a CSCE-led peace-keeping operation in Nagorno- Karabakh. Deployment of a multi-national CSCE peace-keeping force will depend on progress towards a political settlement, on United Nations Security Council backing, and on the requisite military preparation;

    –adopted measures to strengthen the CSCE in its central role of conflict prevention;

    –reinforced, as a result of a British initiative, the CSCE’s arrangements for dealing with the problem of minorities and other human rights questions;

    –set out standards for the democratic control of armed forces, in a new code of conduct;

    –added to military confidence building measures, including provisions for the exchange of information on all conventional forces.

    At a separate ceremony in Budapest on 5 December, Ukraine acceded to the non-proliferation treaty. On behalf of the United Kingdom, I extended to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine the nuclear security assurances which we have given in the past to other non-nuclear weapon states. Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin extended the same assurances on behalf of the United States of America and the Russian Federation.

    In the margins of the conference, I had discussions with many of the CSCE heads of Government, including the Presidents of the Czech Republic, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine and the United States; the German Federal Chancellor; and the Prime Ministers of Hungary, Norway and Turkey.

    The future development of the North Atlantic Alliance was one of the subjects mentioned in many speeches to the conference, and also during my bilateral meetings. It was a point of particular concern to the Russian delegation. I explained to President Yeltsin that our aim, which was widely supported by our partners in NATO and the European Union, was to extend to the east the prosperity and stability which members of the European Union and NATO now enjoy. That was why both organisations were developing their links with the countries of central and eastern Europe. NATO had commissioned a study of the principles of enlargement, but had taken no decisions yet on which countries might join the organisation or when. It was very important for NATO to build up its relationship with Russia, and we therefore hoped that the Russian Government would soon sign their agreement with NATO on the “Partnership for Peace” programme. It was common ground that there should be no new dividing line across Europe. The dominant political issue at the summit was the conflict in Bosnia. CSCE decisions are adopted by consensus, and because of differences of view between certain participants, a draft declaration on Bosnia was not adopted. However, the chairman of the conference spoke for many delegations in issuing, in his personal capacity, a call on all warring parties in Bosnia, and particularly in Bihac, to end the fighting, declare a ceasefire and allow free access of humanitarian assistance throughout Bosnia. My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, will be making a statement separately to the House on Bosnia, taking account of discussions during the Budapest summit.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Douglas Hurd – 6 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, held in Budapest on Tuesday 6th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like first to express my thanks to the Hungarian government for the hospitality and organisation of this conference. It is a very large conference by almost any reckoning and I think the organisation has been absolutely excellent and I am most grateful for that.

    During the whole of the summit I think it is fair to say that two issues have dominated: Bosnia, of course, as it was always likely to do; and the future enlargement of NATO. On Bosnia I set out in my speech yesterday what was at stake and frankly I have very little to add to that. The British troops in Bosnia are there to help the protection forces discharge an humanitarian mandate, they are there to save lives. In the period that they have been there I believe they have saved many thousands of lives and they are there to keep the peace where there is a peace to be kept. They are emphatically not there to fight a war or to take sides.

    But if the events deteriorate to the point where United Nations troops and the British contingent can no longer carry out their mandate without unacceptable risk, then of course they will have to leave, and that is simply to state a matter of fact.

    I very much hope that it will not come to this, it certainly does not have to come to this. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Serb, Bosnian and Croat leaders in the last 48 hours and all of them, without exception, have said they would like the protection forces to stay. Now if that is a view sincerely held, the conclusion to be drawn is self-evident. The warring parties must, without delay, cease fire, allow the free passage of United Nations troops and aid and make it possible to re-start the peace negotiations.

    On the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation there has frankly been rather a lot of excitable comment this morning about an East-West rift. I think it is worthwhile looking at precisely what our aim should be. Our aim must be to spread eastwards the prosperity and the stability that members of the European Union and NATO now enjoy, and that is precisely why both organisations are currently developing ties with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, in a number of cases with a view to eventual membership of those organisations.

    We wish obviously to move gradually and carefully towards enlargement, building on the Partnership for Peace programme. I spent some time discussing this yesterday with President Yeltsin and this followed an earlier conversation on the same subject when he visited Chequers last September. And it is perfectly apparent from that discussion that President Yeltsin’s concern is that NATO would enlarge swiftly to Russia’s Western border, possibly starting as early as next year. I said to him in our conversation that in fact NATO’s proposals were to move cautiously and without deadlines. NATO’s study into future membership is about the how and the why of enlargement, not the who and when of future membership. I made it clear to President Yeltsin that the United Kingdom wanted the outcome of the study to be discussed openly with all Partnership for Peace partners, including Russia, and there should be no surprises and there should be no secret deals about the enlargement of NATO.

    I formed the impression that President Yeltsin was entirely satisfied with that approach. He is concerned with the pace and the scale of NATO’s enlargement, he does not want to see a new dividing line drawn across Europe and neither do any of the members of NATO or the would-be members of NATO wish to see such a dividing line. It is therefore very important for NATO to continue to build up its relationship with Russia and that is why I hope that Russia will soon be able to sign its Partnership for Peace agreements with NATO.

    The talk we have heard over the past 24 – 48 hours of a relapse into the Cold War ignores I think yesterday’s very substantial achievements – the strengthening of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty through the accession of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, the entry into force of START I, and a clearing of the way towards the ratification of START II. And I think what those agreements, signed yesterday, show, is that a great prize is still very much within reach between East and West, a partnership between Russia and the West from which the sharp hostilities of the Cold War will be absent.

    I think therefore that much of the talk about difficulties between NATO and Russia has been grotesquely overdone, there are concerns and I think those concerns can readily be met.

    During the period we have been here both I and the Foreign Secretary have had the opportunity of a large number of bilateral discussions with other Foreign Ministers and Heads of Government and that also has been a very useful adjunct to the conference as a whole.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds, BBC):

    How can you explain how the situation has arisen where you are talking of withdrawing troops when the Security Council resolution clearly gives you the right to use all necessary means to carry out the humanitarian mandate?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I explained that rather clearly yesterday, I think, Paul. The troops are there for an humanitarian purpose, for so long as they can safely carry out that humanitarian purpose, they will stay. I am not anxious for the troops to leave, quite the reverse, we were one of the first countries to send troops there in large numbers and we did so because of our humanitarian concern for what is happening there. But those troops are not equipped to fight a war and they are not there to fight a war and we have to have concern for the safety of those troops, as indeed to other troop contributors. And the point that I have been making is that if they cannot safely undertake their task then it is not credible for them to remain. I hope that will not occur but I have to warn that it could.

    QUESTION:

    Is the British government thinking in terms of time to withdraw their troops from the former Yugoslavia and to get a peace plan approved by the various sides?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we have not got a particular timescale in mind and as I indicated just now, I very much hope that it will not be necessary to withdraw troops. But if they cannot satisfactorily undertake their task, and it is not safe for them to remain, then we may have no choice. As far as seeking diplomatic conclusion is concerned, the Foreign Secretary has had a range of meetings over the last weekend with Foreign Minister Juppe, he met Mr Milosevic and others, the Contact Group are resuming and we very much hope the peace plan can move forward, the Foreign Secretary may wish to add to it. Certainly we wish to explore more diplomatic moves to see whether a settlement can be reached, that infinitely is the prize that we must all aim for.

    QUESTION (Nik Gowing, Channel 4 News):

    How much, if a withdrawal has to happen, will be dictated by what is happening on the ground, how much of it in the end will be dictated by your military advice which says Prime Minister if we do not go now, it is going to be increasingly difficult to withdraw. And secondly, is the withdrawal likely to take the 165 days which the UN mentioned at the beginning of last week or can it be done much quicker?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The points you raise are interlinked, of course. But the other point that needs to be made, it is not just a question of the British, it is a question of the other troops who are there as well, they are there as United Nations troops, of course we are particularly concerned about the British contingent there, but the United Nations themselves will be concerned about all the troops. We have to look both at what the situation is at present and what it looks as though it is going to become. Withdrawal is not an overnight affair so of course we must have contingency plans for that, but if you will forgive me I will not go into those in depth.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to ask if from the British point of view can we expect any concrete steps forward from the participants of this summit in connection with the Bosnian problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure what concrete will emerge from this particular summit except the frustration that everyone feels, there is a universal desire to end the fighting and reach a negotiated settlement and repeatedly that universal desire is frustrated on the ground by one party or another. So I think undoubtedly there is a huge amount of frustration about that. What in concrete terms may emerge from this summit, I am not sure that this summit is going to produce anything that will definitively move the process forward and I am not sure it was ever likely that it will be able to do so.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I think the sequences of what needs to happen is now increasingly accepted, the order of things, though some of the substance of them is difficult. First, there has to be a ceasefire and a cessation of hostilities, beginning in Bihac. There is an argument about how long it should be for, arguments about how it should be worked out, and that is really for the UN on the ground to negotiate, as Mr Akashi is trying to do. Then there needs to be acceptance of the Contact Group plan. As you know, it is accepted by everybody except the Bosnian Serbs and even some of them yesterday in Belgrade said they should accept it, that is a new development, foreshadowed to Alain Juppe and myself by Mr Milosevic when we saw him the night before last. But that plan is not yet accepted by the Bosnian Serbs. Then there can be talks about territorial adjustments, about land swaps, among the parties to see if such swaps can be agreed. At the same time there can be talks about Constitutional arrangements, as set out in the Contact Group document. And then there needs to be a Bosnian Serb withdrawal to the 49 percent which under the Contact Group plan they would be entitled to occupy within Bosnia Herzegovina, the integrity of whose frontiers is stated by the Contact Group plan.

    So that is the sequence of events. As I say, there is argument at several points of it, but everyone I have talked to, all members of the Contact Group, President Milosevic, President Izetbegovic, President Tudjman, accept that that is the sequence, that is the order in which these things ought to happen.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As the Foreign Secretary sets out, the route map to peace is perfectly clear. The question at issue is whether the leaders of the opposing groups will actually march down that route, we very much wish to see them do so.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, the Baltic States is considered during all the European structures as a security question but at the same time in Western countries sometimes we hear about some neutrality or special status of the Baltic States because of the neighbourhood of Russia. What is your opinion about these things?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    NATO itself is developing a Partnership for Peace proposal which stretches straight through to Russia and includes Russia. We very much wish Russia to take a full part in the Partnership for Peace. That is a stepping stone. We need to deal with the realities of what needs to be done to avoid awakening old fears across Europe.

    Of course NATO is going to enlarge – that is no longer in question – but NATO is going to enlarge cautiously and carefully and I think no-one should be in any doubt about that. There is a great deal to be done. It isn’t just a political point, it is a military point as well. One needs to ensure that the circumstances are satisfactory for a cautious but worthwhile and continuing enlargement of NATO. That will take some time. In the meantime, Partnership for Peace is a very attractive and very worthwhile stepping stone.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    We certainly see the Baltic States as part of the European family, a welcome part, and we British are very active there, for example with the Nordic countries training the Baltic peacekeeping battalion and last Monday we agreed in the Foreign Affairs Council on a mandate to open negotiations for the next agreement between the European Union and the Baltic States. As the Prime Minister has said, they are part of the Partnership for Peace; they have all three agreed to the Partnership for Peace and are working out the actual content of each Partnership agreement for each of the three countries so things are on the move and I think they will make steady progress.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I had the opportunity of meeting the Baltic leaders not very long ago in Vilnius and we had the opportunity of discussing all this and how the progress forward might come and I think they are very realistic about what can be achieved and in what time-scale.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant , BBC TV):

    Prime Minister, can I ask you a question on the burning domestic issue and that is can you confirm that if the Government were to lose on the VAT issue you wouldn’t try to make up the shortfall by increasing borrowing and are you prepared to make a last minute appeal to potential rebels not to carry out their threat because if they do so at the very least the Government would be seriously embarrassed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope we are going to win the vote this evening on the Budget resolution, I very much hope we are going to win; I shall no doubt learn more about that when I return to the United Kingdom later on this afternoon but the Chancellor set out the circumstances yesterday and I am going to say no more in Budapest this afternoon.

    QUESTION (RAI ITALIAN TV, CHANNEL 3):

    Mr. Prime Minister, do you believe an arms sale embargo should be lifted in Bosnia and in your talk with President Yeltsin what has emerged as an obstacle to developing a common document on Bosnia which is not coming out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me deal with the first point of lifting the arms embargo. We don’t believe lifting the arms embargo would be a wise development; we don’t believe that would aid peace. We do believe that lifting the arms embargo would make it impossible for the United Nations humanitarian mission to safely continue and if the humanitarian mission were to leave that is going to have very profound effects for a lot of people and I think it highly appropriate for people to think what would be the position on the ground if the arms embargo were lifted and the United Nations troops were to move. The single simple question to ask oneself is does that bring peace nearer or does that bring peace further away and I think the answer to that question is self-evident; it takes peace further away, it puts more people’s lives at risk, many more people would be killed and who knows to what extent the war then would spread.

    I don’t believe it is appropriate to have a situation where United Nations troops have had to go, the arms embargo has been lifted and one then sees a much wider war perhaps spreading southwards. Who can tell what precisely would happen? It is conceivable that events will force us down that path but we will not go down it willingly because we think it will add to the bloodshed and not end the bloodshed and it has been our determination to end it from the start of this conflict.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    On the second point, efforts were made to agree a separate document on Bosnia and our delegation tried to reconcile different points of view so there could be a document. My understanding, unless there has been some breakthrough in the last ten minutes, is it has not been possible to agree such a document. Our guidance is therefore the decisions of the Contact Group, the Security Council and indeed under the Security Council of the North Atlantic Council.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t speak for the last ten minutes but it certainly wasn’t agreed fifteen minutes ago.

    QUESTION (Ian Black, Guardian):

    Can I ask you, Prime Minister, whether you are not becoming increasingly concerned about the possible damage to relations between Britain and the United States over the situation in Bosnia? We have had the argument within NATO about bombing and we had Senator Dole in London last week. Is this not going to get worse and worse as long as this situation continues?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think when people look at differences between the United Kingdom and the United States these days they are confusing differences between Congress and the British Government rather than the American Administration and the British Government.

    The American Administration I think now very largely shares our view about the dangers of unilateral lift and what in practice would happen as a result of unilateral lift, so there are no strains of the sort that many people were forecasting some time ago between the British and the United States administrations about this. If I may borrow the word I used a few moments ago, we are both frustrated about the lack of progress, we both want to see a negotiated settlement. I think we both now recognise the dangers of unilateral lift.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I had a long talk last night with Warren Christopher before he went off to Damascus and I must say I felt quite strongly at the end of this talk that we and the United States, after a period of disagreement, were now actually moving in outline and in detail in the same direction. Since the Contact Group agreement on Friday night, the United States has had its contacts with some of the parties, we have had our contacts with some of the parties, we have compared notes, we were all saying the same thing so this is now an effort which we and the Administration are pursuing together. There are voices outside the Administration just as there are voices in Britain who take a different line but the two governments are working closely together.

    QUESTION (Peter Oborne, Evening Standard):

    Mr. Major, at the weekend your Cabinet colleague, Peter Lilley, said that the group of nine should have the whip reinstated at once. Do you share that view?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He didn’t say that. What Peter Lilley said was that there was no choice but to withdraw the whip and he hoped colleagues would return in due course. He didn’t put a time-scale that. I hope colleagues will continue to support the Conservative Government. In due course, therefore, they will no doubt wish to return to the Conservative whip but I think you are putting words into Peter’s mouth.

    QUESTION (Peter Oborne, Evening Standard):

    Secondly, what will you do to those who vote against the Government or abstain tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made it clear that I hope colleagues will support us tonight. I don’t propose to go further than that, you would be surprised if I did. I think that comes into the category of “Very good try, Peter!”

    QUESTION (National Review):

    Back to Bosnia for a minute, Sir. In your speech yesterday you emphasised that no side in the conflict there can expect to gain a military victory. Isn’t that precisely what is happening at the moment with the Serbs occupying 70% of the land there? If, therefore, the British contingent of the UN peace force is brought home, what danger remains, what justification exists for still not allowing the Bosnian government the right to defend themselves through lifting the arms embargo once that danger has been removed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are drawing two things together that don’t necessarily follow. I think it is very likely that if not the British but the United Nations protection forces were to withdraw, then very probably the arms embargo would be lifted but that is a separate proposition from lifting the arms embargo with United Nations troops in the middle of Bosnia and of course there are different things happening in different parts of Bosnia – there are Bosnian advances in parts of central Bosnia.

    One of the things that has bedevilled this whole enterprise from the start is that when one has moved close to what one thought might be a conceivable diplomatic settlement, one side or other has sensed some territorial advantage of the weeks or months that lie immediately ahead and at that stage the diplomatic settlement has slipped away and of course that has happened on a roller coaster basis time and time again.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary, what kind of message do you think it delivers to people living in Europe that this Conference apparently is unable to agree even on words that should be spoken about the greatest crisis on the Continent which is the war in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It would have been very agreeable, we may yet get an agreement but we hadn’t as at fifteen minutes ago; it would have been very agreeable to have had one. I think what they would be better advised to look at is the large number of people in Europe who are anxious for a settlement, who have been sufficiently anxious for a settlement not only to put diplomatic effort into achieving a settlement but troops and humanitarian activities on the ground to try and promote a settlement and ease the suffering until there is a settlement but there are people with sharply differing views here and that is why it has not been possible thus far to agree a form of words.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I don’t honestly think that many people are sitting up looking at their watches and saying: “When is the CSCE going to produce its document on Bosnia?” That is not what is preoccupying people really. The CSCE has to adopt everything by unanimity and that does put a limitation on what it can agree but what has happened – and quite dramatically – over the last few weeks is that all kinds of different ideas about how you can achieve peace in Bosnia have been examined and at least for the moment dismissed. There is no mention in the Contact Group document of the arms embargo; no government is now pressing for that to be lifted. There is no mention of a military victory, indeed it is excluded as a possibility and President Clinton was clear about that yesterday so everyone who is seriously engaged in this matter is now talking about a negotiated peace. Then you lead into how you achieve that and of course that is extremely difficult and has frustrated everybody up to now but then you get into the sequence of events which I mentioned before which I won’t repeat so there has been a lot of clearing out of ideas which don’t fit the present situation and that is helpful because if you are going to seek to do the things that are necessary you have to get out of your mind the things that aren’t possible.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In the best-organised circumstances unanimity is not always possible.

    QUESTION (Judith Dawson, Sky TV):

    I was just wondering about the remarks the Russian Foreign Minister has made about the sanctions on Serbia wondering whether there can be agreement amongst the Contact Group at least that those sanctions are lifted so that you might get Mr. Milosevic to put some pressure on Mr. Karadzic to actually get them to the peace table.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Foreign Secretary met Mr. Milosevic the other day and spent an hour and a half with Mr. Kozyrev this morning so he is perhaps better placed than I am to give you an up-to-date answer.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    Both Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Kozyrev believe that the international community has not sufficiently recognised President Milosevic’s courage in accepting the Contact Group plan; they believe that it should be further recognised by further relief of sanctions. Alain Juppe and I have explained to both of them that that is not practicable unless there is further progress. There has been some relief as you know, there are now flights into Belgrade airport, certain events which fell under sanctions have been relieved and there is a provision for humanitarian relief but further lifting of sanctions will have to depend in practice on further progress and President Milosevic knows that.

  • PMQT – 6 December 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th December 1994. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been attending the Budapest summit of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

    Mrs. Prentice: What advice would the Leader of the House give to his hon. Friends who have made public commitments to vote against any rise in VAT on fuel? Should they stand by their principles and their constituents or should they abandon those principles, ditch their constituents and toe the Tory party line?

    Mr. Newton: My advice to my hon. Friends would be to recognise the importance of the vote tonight and the fact that it will be incumbent on those who wish to vote as the hon. Lady suggests–as she will, no doubt, vote herself–to show a credible alternative and not some cop-out like a windfall tax. The alternatives are other taxes, cuts in expenditure or additional borrowing, with all that that might mean for interest rates.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming majority of the British people are opposed to any fundamental constitutional change? They do not wish to see a Scandinavian-style monarchy and they do not wish to see a socialist republic. They believe that any such changes would be highly expensive and totally unnecessary. They believe, “If it works, don’t fix it.”

    Mr. Newton: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for the large majority of people in this country in finding it almost unbelievable that the Labour party apparently thinks that its first priority should be to have a year of constitutional upheaval, involving all British institutions, including Parliament, and threatening the Union. I believe that Labour has greatly underestimated the strength and depth of public support for the monarchy.

    Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in tonight’s vote on VAT there will be two types of Tory Member: those who will abide by their specific promise made at the general election not to extend VAT on fuel and those who will make any promise to get elected with no intention of keeping to it even when some of the poorest people in our country will be affected?

    Mr. Newton: From what the right hon. Gentleman says, I suppose that we can assume that there will be only one kind of Labour Member–one who votes for an irresponsible cop-out.

    Mr. Blair: Is the Leader of the House really saying that there is no other way to restore the nation’s finances than through this most hated and unpopular tax? Why does he not look first at the executive share options, the abuses of inheritance tax and the windfall profits made by utilities rather than taxing families and pensioners?

    Mr. Newton: I have already described the windfall tax as a cop-out; by definition, a windfall must be a one-off and cannot replace a continuing stream of revenue. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s loopholes, I remind him of the words of the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, who said that this

    “is not a loophole-closing exercise at all, rather a massive increase in business taxation”.

    That is the clue to the Opposition’s position. They prattle all the time about their desire to encourage employment, but every time they are pushed, they want to put up business taxes, raise social costs and damage investment and jobs.

    Mr. Blair: Is it really the nation’s finances that concern the right hon. Gentleman, or the Conservative party’s pre-election tax cuts? May I summarise the strategy for which Tory Members of Parliament will vote tonight? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order in this House. [Interruption.] Order–from all of you.

    Mr. Blair: May I summarise the strategy of Tory Members of Parliament for next year? The price of tax cuts next winter will be some of Britain’s pensioners freezing in their own homes this week.

    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman would have done better to stick to his recent practice of asking rather fewer questions. My priority and the priority of Her Majesty’s Government is to sustain an economic recovery, which is now giving us some of the strongest growth in Europe, low inflation, rapidly falling unemployment and the prospect of improving living standards. That is what we intend to maintain, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman would throw away.

     

    Q3. Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that any decision regarding the Royal Air Force’s future requirement for transport aircraft will not be taken until the spring, when all the alternatives, including the future large aircraft and British Aerospace’s commitment to maintain the existing Hercules fleet at 20 per cent. below the present cost, will have been fully evaluated?

    Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has made it clear that we hope to be able to make an announcement on tranche 3 of the Hercules rolling replacement programme shortly. All relevant factors will be taken into account and, I am sure, will include my hon. Friend’s representations on behalf of his constituents.

     

    Q4. Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Loyden: Does the Leader of the House recall a question asked during Business Question Time about the provision of a copy of the report of the marine accident investigation branch into the recent research done on the MV Derbyshire? Obviously, the Leader of the House made no impression on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport because, in fact, the report is not in the Library. I was also surprised today to see a letter telling the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which had asked for a copy of the report, that the report was a matter for the Secretary of State. Does the Leader of the House not think that the bereaved families, the House and the country are entitled to know what that report says about the investigation carried out and financed by an international union and the RMT?

    Mr. Newton: I well understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter and the continuing concern of bereaved families about the loss of the Derbyshire. The position is that the chief inspector of marine accidents submitted his assessment of the sonar and video material provided by the International Transport Workers Federation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 30 November–less than a week ago. My right hon. Friend is currently considering whether further action needs to taken. I shall, of course, bring to his attention the request that the hon. Gentleman has made.

    Mr. Walden: Does my right hon. Friend think that when a Member of this House makes proposals concerning the constitution it is grown-up politics or intelligent politics for Ministers to hunt him like a pack of demented corgis? How does my right hon. Friend think that we as a party can hope to reconcile the encouragement of indiscriminate deference towards well-born nonentities with our policy of encouraging and promoting social talent in this country?

    Mr. Newton: I would say to my hon. Friends what I said in answer to a previous question. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and some of his colleagues have significantly underestimated the strength and depth of public support for the monarchy, which is not the same as saying that there will not be continued evolution, as there has been during the past couple of years. More important than that, however, I believe that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have gravely overestimated the public’s desire to see constitutional upheaval, including the monarchy, all over the scene. I do not believe that that is what the British public want.

     

    Q5. Dr. Howells: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Dr. Howells: Does the Leader of the House agree that British troops in UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia are doing a superb job in difficult and dangerous circumstances, and that the attacks on General Mike Rose and on British troops by American Congressmen and Bosnian politicians are completely unwarranted and seem designed more to promote further bloodshed than to reach a peaceful situation in the area?

    Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the way in which he put it. It is clear that it is widely supported in the House. For my part, and on behalf of the Government, I can say straightforwardly that we do not accept the criticism of General Rose. He and his small, courageous force are doing an excellent job in the most difficult and trying circumstances and they will continue to have our full support. I might add–I know that there is some concern in the House about the matter–that I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has been much involved with the contact group over the weekend, will wish to make a statement tomorrow.

    Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern and that of the several hundred people who have contacted me about the case of one of my constituents, the elderly pensioner Mr. Ted Newbery? Is he aware that Mr. Newbery was acquitted by a jury of the action that he took in self-defence against a burglar? The burglar was gaoled. Yet the cleared Mr. Newbery has been asked to compensate the guilty burglar. Does my right hon. Friend agree that justice has not been done, that Mr. Newbery’s case should be re-heard and that the law that is applied in such circumstances must be reviewed?

    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is present on the Government Front Bench and will have heard what she said. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand–she may even have anticipated what I am about to say–that I must make the point that the judiciary is entirely independent of Government and that it is not the practice for Ministers to comment on its decisions in quite the way that she invites me to do. On the other hand, she will have gauged, as no doubt others have also done, the reaction in the House generally to the events that she has described.

     

    Q6. Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Leader of the House aware that Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein claims to have no semtex in his hands? Will he assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government will not be misled by such blandishments? In the light of the Hamas parallel in Israel, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the guard will not be lowered, nor the entry requirement for talks?

    Mr. Newton: The handing over of arms and explosives is, as I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates, an important issue to be addressed in the exploratory dialogue which begins on Friday. I can give the hon. Gentleman a clear-cut assurance on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends that Her Majesty’s Government will not leave the people of Northern Ireland–or, indeed, of Great Britain–exposed.

    Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party will always seek to protect those parents who rightly put the interests of their children first in making a choice about where to send their children to school, even if that means defending the Leader of the Opposition from the policies of his own party?

    Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend knows, the policy of Her Majesty’s Government is not only to defend the right of choice of parents in these and other circumstances, but, so far as possible, to enhance and increase them. What I would really like to hear from Opposition Front-Bench Members- -I can see several who have opposed this in the past–is a clear-cut commitment to call off their local authorities, which are trying to frustrate that choice throughout the country.

     

    Q7. Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Davies: As the chair of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has stated, the Student Loans Company Ltd. is in such chaos that students are being denied the resources which the Government say they require in order to live. What do the Government intend to do about that?

    Mr. Newton: What I will do on this occasion is to make the point that the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has just made appears inconsistent with the fact that, during this Government’s period in office, participation in higher education has risen from one in eight of the relevant group to one in three.

  • Mr Major’s Comments at the Signing Ceremony of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – 5 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments at the signing ceremony of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, held in Budapest on Monday 5th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    [First section not recorded]

    … and I believe this will send a further positive signal about the strong commitment of these countries to European and global security and stability but these decisions of course do more than that: they open the doors for the entry into force of START 1 and the ratification of START 2 and both those treaties are significant milestones in nuclear disarmament and we need them to be successful if we are to see the safer world that all of us hope to see in the future.

    These developments illustrate the character of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is the only internationally-agreed framework for negotiations on nuclear disarmament and it is why we must all work together for the indefinite and unconditional extension of the treaty in 1995. Against this background, the United Kingdom is pleased to join the United States and the Russian Federation in extending to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine the nuclear security assurances which we have given in the past to other non-nuclear-weapon states.

    I believe that it is appropriate that this ceremony should take place during the CSCE summit. By offering nuclear assurances we underline our commitment to work for the security, the peace and the prosperity of all the CSCE participating states and to do so on a continuing basis and on the basis of the principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris. I believe to say that today is an historic day is in no sense to overstate what has been achieved and what has been signed on this occasion. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Bosnia – 5 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments during an interview on 5th December 1994 relating to Bosnia.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the possibility of early British withdrawal from Bosnia]

    ANSWER:

    I don’t think anyone can be certain about that at the moment. We very much do not wish to withdraw the British troops there. The UNPROFOR troops generally have done a marvellous job; there are huge numbers of people alive today who would not have been alive but for UNPROFOR but if the circumstances become impossible, if the sides are not prepared to reach an agreement, if the fighting goes on, then it might be necessary for UNPROFOR to withdraw. Certainly that possibility is greater now than it was a month or so ago.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Bosnia at CSCE Summit – 5 December 1994

    Below are extracts from Mr Major’s Speech at the CSCE Summit in Budapest on Monday 5th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me say some words on Bosnia.

    None of us can rest while the fighting in Bosnia continues,

    None of us believe either side in the war in Bosnia can win a military victory.

    None of the Contact Group Governments believe that bombing from the air can stop the fighting on the ground.

    The only way forward is by negotiation.

    There is not much time left. The British Government want UNPROFOR to be able to continue its valuable mission. But that is threatened by the continued fighting on the ground, and by the tactics of the Bosnian Serbs, preventing peacekeepers and aid workers from doing their job. We will not be able to keep our troops in Bosnia if they face unacceptable risks, or if they are prevented from fulfilling their humanitarian and peacekeeping mandate.

    What is needed first is a general ceasefire throughout Bosnia and the free passage of UN troops and aid convoys. It is a illusory to think that negotiations on a settlement can restart unless those two conditions are met. Third, the Bosnian Serbs must accept, as all others have done, that the Contact Group map is the basis for a settlement.

    There can be exchanges between the parties on the territorial settlement, The parties will have to agree on a constitution. But both parties have an interest in a negotiated peace which far outweighs anything that can be achieved by continuing the war.

    The British Foreign Secretary and French Foreign Minister visited Belgrade yesterday for talks with President Milosevic. They made clear to President Milosevic the responsibility he bears for helping to bring the conflict in Bosnia to an end.

    In August, he accepted the Contact Group plan which includes recognition of the territorial integrity of Bosnia Herzegovina. He stepped up the pressure on the Bosnian Serbs to accept the plan too. Yesterday, President Milosevic reaffirmed his support for the Contact Group plan. He strongly supports the presence of UNPROFOR in Bosnia. We urged President Milosevic to put his weight behind obtaining, as a matter of urgency, a ceasefire on the ground. The Foreign Secretary has met President Izetbegovic and President Tudjman here to discuss the way forward with them too.

    Meanwhile UNPROFOR continues to mount an outstanding humanitarian mission. Britain is one of the largest troop contributors. The dedication of our troops and aid workers has saved countless lives. British convoys account for 25 per cent of all UNHCR’s aid fleet. Twenty per cent of the humanitarian assistance delivered by air to Sarajevo is brought by British aircraft. This effort should not lightly be cast aside.

    There will be a tragedy if the situation on the ground makes it impossible for UNPROFOR to carry out its mandate and forces it to withdraw. There will be more fighting, probably on a scale that spills over to neighbouring countries. Are the leaders of the region going to lead their people into intensified war and further destruction? Do any of them still believe in this illusion of a military victory? It is their decision. The international community wants to help them. But it cannot shoulder responsibilities that belong to the leaders of the region. Nor can those leaders use UNPROFOR as a shield for the pursuit of warlike objectives. That is what is going on in Bosnia. That must stop.

    As a member of the Contact Group, as a troop contributor, as a member of the Security Council and of the CSCE, Britain will continue to exert itself day by day for a durable peace in Bosnia. I urge all here to do the same.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1994 Conservative Women’s Conference – 2 December 1994

    Below are extracts, published by Conservative Central Office, of Mr Major’s speech to the 1994 Conservative Women’s Conference, held at the International Centre in Hammersmith on Friday 2nd December 1994.

    [significant sections missing from transcript]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Northern Ireland

    Yesterday, after three months of ceasefire in Northern Ireland, we announced that exploratory talks with Sinn Fein would start next week.

    The peace process is about to move into a new phase. A critically important phase. Before Christmas we shall be starting talks about talks not only with Sinn Fein but also with Loyalist political representatives.

    These talks are not yet political negotiations about Northern Ireland’s future. They are the gateway to public life and democratic politics for groups who have long excluded themselves.

    These groups must learn the rules of democratic politics. And those rules can’t be reconciled with gun law, intimidation, or any threat of violence.

    [section missing]

    Not peace at any price, but the lasting peace which can only come from the principles of democracy and law.

    Not just a season of goodwill but goodwill through all the seasons.

    1993 brought hope to Northern Ireland. In 1994, hope has begun to turn into reality.

    In 1995 we must make that a lasting reality, a life for the Province free from violence.

    Strong Economy

    Daily Britain is growing stronger – and it is doing so because of the policies we have followed. So, today, I want to look forward to some of the key issues at the next General Election.

    What will be the economic conditions at the time of that Election? And what will be the issues?

    We can foresee the economic conditions.

    Next time we will not be in the middle of a recession. Instead, we will be campaigning on the back of four years of high growth; of low inflation; of falling unemployment; of investment in industry; of competitiveness; and of rising exports.

    This is not idle speculation – not a wish list. This is the probable background against which we will fight.

    We now have before us the brightest economic prospects any of us have ever seen.

    Over the past 12 months growth in the economy has been a little above four per cent. Rarely have we seen it grow quite so fast. But even that isn’t really the significant point.

    [section missing]

    It hasn’t been easy. It has been painful. Painful for many people. Painful for us politically. Many people said ‘ease up.’ Many a seductive option was urged on us. An interest rate cut here, a bit more protection there – all the short-term palliatives.

    They were often offered for good reasons, these easy options. But they were wrong. And our policy was right – it was long-term and it was necessary. Now we will see the reward. We have now laid the groundwork for sustained growth with low inflation for many years to come.

    We were following a long-term strategy – not a short-term fix.

    We took long-term decisions, not short-term expedients.

    What we did was right for the long-term future of this country.

    We may have faced unpopularity – but we have done what had to be done. And we’ve done it successfully.

    The Conservative agenda is clear. To turn our present low inflation economy into a permanent low inflation economy.

    Not for abstract reasons; but because such an economy delivers security, opportunity and prosperity – and they are important to us all.

    Of course we still wish to cut taxes where we can. And we will.

    And we’ll continue to improve the strength of industry, raise standards in our schools, give better training to our young people. and get more of those long-term unemployed off welfare benefits and back into jobs.

    All that is now happening although there is still much to be done. I am not complacent….

    [section missing]

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 December 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Nuclear Proliferation

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to nuclear proliferation were discussed during his meeting with his Pakistani counterpart on 28 November.

    The Prime Minister: Non-proliferation was not raised in my meeting, but my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, discussed non- proliferation in south Asia with the Pakistani Prime Minister when he called on her on 30 November 1994.

     

    Honours System

    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister upon what grounds the grant of an honour may be withdrawn; and in which cases this has happened since 1979.

    The Prime Minister: The statutes of most orders of knighthood and the royal warrants of decorations and medals include provision for the Queen to “cancel and annul” appointments and awards. Cancellation is considered in cases where retention of the appointment or award would bring the honours system into disrepute. There are no set guidelines for cancellations, which are considered on a case-by-case basis.

    Since 1979, the London Gazette has published details of cancellations of 15 appointments and awards–three knighthoods, one CBE, five OBEs, four MBEs and two BEMs.

    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister how many Conservative hon. Members have received knighthoods since 1979.

    The Prime Minister: One hundred and fifteen Conservative hon. Members have received knighthoods since 1979.

     

    Former Ministers

    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister which rules cover former Ministers who wish to take appointments in the private sector; and what plans he has to reconsider such rules.

    The Prime Minister: Guidance is contained in paragraph 105 of “Question of Procedure for Ministers”. This matter is within the terms of reference of the Nolan committee and I will consider the guidance in the light of any recommendations that it may make.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what documentary evidence is available to Her Majesty’s Government to support the belief that the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie was dispatched from Luqa airport, Malta.

    The Prime Minister: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to establish the allegations made in the criminal charges against the two Libyans accused, which include the allegation that the bomb was introduced on to an aircraft at Luqa airport, Malta. However, he cannot give details of that evidence while criminal proceedings are pending.