The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1995

  • Mr Major’s London Press Conference on Bosnian Situation – 30 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s press conference in London on Tuesday 30th May 1995 on the subject of Bosnia.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    All of you of course will know of the decisions that were taken on Sunday night. I should perhaps emphasise, some people perhaps may not have noticed this, that the meeting for Sunday night was of course called some time before the British hostages were taken. There will be an opportunity in the House of Commons tomorrow, in both Houses, for a full debate on the Bosnian situation generally and upon the decisions we took on Sunday night. What I would like to do in the next few minutes is to share with you how the Government intends to handle this difficult moment for our troops in Bosnia.

    Let me just say something about those troops at the outset. British people are immensely proud of their Armed Forces and I may address that remark to those of you present here in this conference, but I direct them more to our soldiers, the families and relatives of those who serve in Bosnia, and perhaps particularly to the families of those soldiers who are held hostage at the present moment. At this difficult time it is to them that my thoughts are principally directed.

    I sent, as Prime Minister, our troops to Bosnia and I intend to do everything in my power to ensure that our soldiers are released from their present captivity. We have not lightly said that this is a vital national interest. We have sent a letter to Mr Karadzic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs, that we shall hold him and General Maladic personally responsible for the safety of British troops in Bosnian Serb hands.

    We are of course also acting in close concert with our allies and with those governments whose peace-keepers are also being held captive. This new development, this taking hostage of peace-keepers is an outrage, condemned by the whole international community, and rightly so. But not only is it an outrage, it is a self-defeating folly. There can be no possible gain, political or military, from threatening the lives of those who have saved countless lives, of Serb, Croat, Muslim, right across the whole of Bosnia.

    So let me say quite clearly to the Bosnian Serbs, this sort of action is the path to total international isolation and permanent pariah status.

    In the present circumstances we now have to think coolly and with a clear head about the way forward. In the past few days I have been in close contact with Chancellor Kohl, President Yeltsin, President Chirac, President Clinton and Prime Minister Cretian. My colleagues, the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, have been in equally close touch with their colleagues from NATO and from the Contact Group.

    My own view has always been that so long as the United Nations troops, including the British contingent, can carry out their humanitarian mission without unacceptable risk to their lives, then they should continue to carry out that mission. Neither do I agree with those who say that the West has no strategic interest in this conflict. The prevention of a full-scale Balkan war is very much a strategic interest for those of us in the West.

    That remains my view. And it is very easy to forget in present circumstances precisely what our troops have achieved. They have stopped the fighting from spreading more widely throughout the Balkans; they have negotiated and upheld ceasefires; they have delivered literally thousand upon thousand of tons of food and medicines to people who would otherwise surely have died; and fighting has stopped in much of Central Bosnia over the last 15 months and that of course is where most of the British troops have been based during this period.

    These are achievements that our troops there can rightly be proud of and they are not to be lightly discarded. If the United Nations Protection Forces were to be forced by events to withdraw then the consequences for all the people of Bosnia, and for the wider Balkan region, would be very grave. And it is for that reason that the British Government has never favoured withdrawal.

    But plainly we cannot go on as we are. I therefore ask Douglas Hurd and Malcolm Rifkind to pursue with our allies and partners a three-point strategy:

    – First, we are strengthening the military muscle of British troops in the Protection Forces. That is why we announced on Sunday night the despatch of two artillery batteries and an armoured engineer squadron to Bosnia, the first contingent will leave today. We are also preparing to deploy 24 Air Mobile Brigade. These deployments serve not one, but two, purposes: they will strengthen the British troops’ capacity to defend themselves and they also put in place the kind of reinforcements which would be necessary were a decision taken to withdraw from Bosnia, although I have said withdrawal emphatically is not – not – our objective.

    – Secondly, we must look urgently at the mandate and deployment of Protection Forces troops. We are proposing to our partners and allies that there should be a concentration of United Nations forces so as to reduce their vulnerability.

    – And third, we have to strain every nerve to achieve a political settlement. Without one there will be, in our judgment, no lasting end to the fighting.

    Finally, let me repeat again that we wish to see the United Nations Protection Forces stay in Bosnia, but circumstances could arise where the cost of asking British troops to bear an impossible burden, or to run unacceptable risks, could become too high. I hope that the additional reinforcements will make it possible for UNPROFOR to remain. But if the parties themselves, make that impossible, if they abuse the neutrality, the impartiality and the humanitarian purposes of the United Nations then we and other contributors may find ourselves in the position where there is no viable choice but to bring the Protection Forces home.

    Were that to happen, we would all be losers. If UNPROFOR had to pull out, the United Nations would lose, NATO would lose, the European Union would lose and the authority of the international community would lose. But the greatest loss of all I believe would be in former Yugoslavia itself where Serbs, Croats and Muslims would face a future ruled even more by violence and insecurity than they have faced in the last couple of years.

    I hope to set out these and other matters in the debate in the House of Commons tomorrow. But for the moment I will be happy to take any questions you may have, and so will the Defence Secretary. Let me say at the outset, there will be some questions I will not wish to answer on this occasion.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (David Rose):

    Prime Minister, could you elaborate on what you said about the warning to the leader and military commander of the Bosnian Serbs, that you hold them responsible?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is not a great deal to elaborate upon it, the message is quite, clear and quite unequivocal. British troops are being held. British troops and other United Nations troops, in Bosnia on humanitarian reasons, not party to a conflict, have illegally been taken hostage and held, some of whom have been used as apparent shields against a response by the United Nations Protection Forces. That is illegal. I have made it perfectly clear to the people in command of the troops holding them that the British government will hold them personally responsible for the safety of the British troops. The position is clear and the message passed to them is unequivocal, but I don’t wish to add to it.

    QUESTION (Sky News):

    It would seem that actually getting the forces to the area is becoming increasingly difficult with the threat of Serbian attacks, how are we going to move those troops, is it safe to move them overland or are we going to put them by air where the Serbs have control of the airport?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends which troops you have in mind. I don’t wish to elaborate on precisely how we will move troops for reasons that you touched upon yourself and are self-evident. Suffice to say we are looking at the movement of troops and precisely how they can most favourably and speedily be moved at the moment. As far as the new troops are concerned, some will leave later today, others will leave fairly speedily. And the decision, the preparation, to deploy 14 Air Brigade is proceeding rapidly and they will leave as soon as a firm decision is taken.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Again in your statement you have referred to the real possibility that the British troops and the UN Protection Force may have to withdraw and the troops you are sending there would help in that eventuality. Do you rule out any possibility that British troops and the other UN troops there will actually take a more robust role, that they will actually become involved in making war on the Serbs, because it would seem to me that that is the only thing that they really fear?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    British troops are not there to declare war on the Serbians. They are there to carry out an humanitarian role and a certain degree of robustness in carrying out that role has always been part of the mandate, and they will carry out whatever instructions the Commanders on the ground think is appropriate to carry out the mandate they have already got.

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

    Does the fact that you want to concentrate UN troops in a more defensible space in Bosnia mean that we are no longer able to protect some of the outlying safe areas?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t necessarily know that that is the case. Certainly we are going to have to bring some of the more exposed UNMOs closer in, I think that is self-evident, that has clearly been learned. Beyond that, on this occasion, I don’t wish to say any more about the concentration of troops, we are still discussing that with the Commanders on the ground and with our Allies. And at this stage of course there is still the possibility that other countries will also decide to send more troops there as well.

    QUESTION (Carol Walker, BBC):

    How concerned are you that the Serbs will use this move to send in more troops as a provocation and will instead respond with more aggressive response and create the sort of spiral of violence which you referred to?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the spiral recently has not come from the Protection Forces but from those fighting on the ground. It was not the Protection Forces that lobbed heavy weapons and heavy artillery into Tusla recently. It was not the Protection Forces that actually took captives, that was the activity of the Serbs. It is not tolerable activity, I have made that perfectly clear. And I think in the interests of safety and for the reasons I have set out I am utterly certain we are right to despatch more troops to General Smith’s command in Bosnia.

    QUESTION:

    Could you say whether the other countries that you have just alluded to might include the US, and also could you clarify the command and control point, will the reinforcing troops be under direct British command or will they also be under UN command?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the latter point, we will reach a final conclusion on that later today, I will be able to tell the House of Commons tomorrow the precise details of the command and control of the new troops and in particular the Air Brigade, when despatched. On the earlier point as to which countries may add troops to it, I cannot tell which countries they may be.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you have chosen your words carefully today but hardliners reading this transcript in Pale and elsewhere may say “One last push and these people are going to pull out! They lack the political will and the military capability to enforce their mandate.” What can you say today to leave the impression that the other options which exist are seriously still open and may well taken?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have made the point clearly that I do not wish to see the United Nations protection forces leave; I have repeated that until I am blue in the face; I repeat it again. I think the impact of having them there has not only saved a large number of lives through their humanitarian work, I think they have also diminished the fighting; as I indicated, in much of Central Bosnia where British troops have been, fighting has ceased over the last fifteen months. I don’t believe that fighting would have ceased but for the presence of the British troops there.

    Let me also make the point that if anybody harbours the illusion that if the United Nations protection forces should at some stage be forced to withdraw that the West generally will just be able wash it hands and say: “Well that is the end of it! You can get on entirely on your own!”, I think that is an utterly false delusion. There are wider, strategic interests and it certainly would not be the end of the matter if the protection forces were forced to leave; we would still have those wider, strategic interests. No-one need imagine that we can just lightly walk from this and pretend that something of very great importance right on the borders of the European Union isn’t of interest to us – it clearly is.

    QUESTION:

    You seemed to suggest that these extra troops are going to bolster the UN protection force and yet you won’t say in answer to Don McIntyre, whose control they will be under. Are you trying to confuse us or the Bosnian Serbs, please?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I shall be confusing no-one by tomorrow. We are still discussing the precise details of the command and control of 24 Air Brigade when they get there and as I indicated a moment ago I will make the decision clear to the House of Commons tomorrow but there are some very practical and detailed matters to be considered, they are under active discussion at the moment.

    SIMON WALTERS (THE SUN):

    Prime Minister, you say that the troops will stay there until you think the risk is unacceptable. Do you not think that the mood in this country is that the risk to our troops is now unacceptable and that for that reason they should be brought home immediately

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe that is the mood of the country, no, Simon, not remotely and I recall very well the mood of this country a couple of years when it looked as though we might see genocide on a very wide scale in Bosnia; I remember the immensely warm and concerned reaction when so many of the Bosnian children who were hurt needed treatment.

    I don’t think the British nation would wish lightly that British troops and United Nations troops should turn their back on Bosnia and open up the dangers of what might then happen in the enclaves and don’t be in any doubt about what might happen if United Nations protection forces came out, in the interregnum before anything materially happened, there may well be great trouble in the enclaves. The Serbs would certainly be able to take the enclaves and I don’t know whether you or anyone else can tell me quite how many people then would be killed. I don’t think that is a matter of no concern to us, I believe it is of concern to us.

    You have seen what has happened in Central Bosnia, I have just set that out. British troops have been in Central Bosnia for the last fifteen months and the fighting in Central Bosnia has all but died away. Once we move away, the danger of a full-scale attack on enclaves is clearly there. If there was a full-scale attack on the enclaves, you would see bloodshed on a scale we have not yet previously seen. I believe we have both a strategic interest in preventing a wider Balkan War – I spelt that out a few minutes ago – and I think we have a humanitarian obligation to try and prevent that sort of bloodshed and it is for those reasons that the United Nations protection forces are there as a whole. I believe it was right to send them, I believe it has been right to keep them there, I believe it is right that they are there now and I believe it is right to keep them there for as long as they can remain there without unacceptable risks to the lives of British and other United Nations soldiers.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] request to President Clinton to send troops?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It wasn’t a request, I simply stated that some countries may well send more.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, given what has happened in the aftermath of the NATO air strikes, does that strategic step still look sensible to you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is not a matter I am going to discuss on this particular occasion but if you mean do we rule them out for good, the answer is no.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what role, if any, are the Americans and Russians playing in the new scenario?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a very substantial role. The Croat Federation in the West was substantially a result of American negotiation. Clearly, the Russians still have more influence than most over the Serbs, certainly in Belgrade and perhaps beyond Belgrade so they have a very substantial role to play and they are playing it and think it is very important they continue to do so.

    CHARLES WRIGHT:

    Are you satisfied with the response you have had from President Yeltsin so far and given the Russian interests you have mentioned is there more you think they could do?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are in constant touch with the Russians, the Foreign Secretary is meeting Foreign Minister Kozyrev very possibly at this moment, they are certainly meeting today. When I spoke to President Yeltsin from Bonn on Friday of last week, he responded immediately to our concerns about the escalation and I believe took action immediately so I think yes, they do have a role to play.

    QUESTION (CH4 NEWS):

    Wasn’t the determination and the toughness of the Bosnian Serbs underestimated here? Wasn’t it always likely that they were going to take hostages? Are you happy that the lessons of previous air strikes were properly learned?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is very easy to suddenly say when they have taken hostages that you ought not have had people in exposed positions. It is very easy to say that in retrospect but of course they weren’t in exposed positions for no good reason; they were in exposed positions – observation posts for the protection of the towns. The UNMOs were out there for very good strategic reason, brave men doing a job that they believed in for sound reasons for the overall success of the mission so I don’t think with hindsight that I would wish to enter any criticism of the Commanders on the ground.

    On the general question of air strikes that you raised, of course, when this whole dispute began some three years or so ago, there were some who thought that all the West needed to do or perhaps should do was to lay back and handle the matter with fairly substantial air strikes. I always thought that was unreal and wasn’t a proposition that ever commended itself to the British military advice that I had or that I ever thought was remotely likely.

    People may say that if you hadn’t put troops on the ground, the United Nations personnel on the ground, no hostages could have been taken but I would have thought that civilian hostages put near the sort of targets that might have been attacked from the air would have been just as likely if we had tried just to deal with air attacks, apart from which the prospect of delivering humanitarian aid with air attacks was negligible, there was no prospect of it whatsoever. The prospect of actually ending the conflict from the air was, on the basis of every single piece of military advice I ever had, equally impossible so although some felt two or three years ago that all we had to do was to unleash air attacks from the relative safety of 5,000 feet, that was never a credible posture for the West to entertain, it wasn’t then and isn’t now.

    GEORGE PASKER-WATSON (THE SUN):

    How did you feel last night when you saw the footage of the British soldiers who were being paraded on Serbian television? Did you not think it smacked very much of during the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein did the same thing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think how I felt was expressed very clearly by the message that has been sent to Mr. Karadic and General Mladic; they will be in no doubt about how I felt about it.

    KEVIN BROWN (FINANCIAL TIMES):

    What did you mean by “straining every nerve to find a political settlement”? Is there some new diplomatic initiative under way which has resulted from the recent crisis?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The diplomatic initiatives have continued throughout this whole period; they, frankly, haven’t been very successful so far except as far as the Muslim/Croat Federation in the West is concerned. We may be nearer at the moment to Mr. Milosevic recognising Bosnia than we have been at any stage in the past; that would clearly be a significant step forward. We are not yet – let me make that clear and it is by no means certain we will get there in the next day or so but as we speak at least we are a good deal nearer there than we have been at any stage in past. That would be quite a significant step forward and I hope that we will be able to build on that, if it is achievable, in the next 24 or 48 hours or so.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Bosnia – 26 May 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Bosnia, made on 26th May 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether further air attacks on Bosnia could be expected]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is very difficult to make that judgement from here, it is possible there will be, but I think we will be guided, as ever, by the views of the Commanders on the ground. I certainly would not rule them out. If they seem to be necessary then we would support them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if further escalation was inevitable]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have been trying very hard to avoid that for a long time.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether that was the case]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well you say that but I don’t think that is wholly true. At the outset of these problems we faced the prospect that the dispute might have moved into a cross-Balkan war, that could well have happened, we might well have seen it moving down south to Kosovo, we might well have a complete explosion there, we might have had other people entering, we might have had a full scale Balkan war. And I think what people do not give credit for is the fact that that has been avoided. It is still a very messy situation but it could have been far worse.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Chancellor Kohl in Bonn – 26 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s joint press conference in Bonn with the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, and the German and British Foreign Ministers, on Friday 26th May 1995.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Prime Minister, Ministers, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen. First of all I would like to apologise for the fact of keeping you waiting. You know that I am not in the habit to do so normally but we had our normal and regular consultations here today and it was all of a sudden today that the events in former Yugoslavia took a fairly dramatic turn, so at this point I would only like to make very briefly a few introductory comments on what loomed on the agenda of our bilateral consultations and then the Foreign Ministers will give a report on what happened today.

    The delay took place because the Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, whom we both wanted to call, and we did so, was not in Moscow but in Minsk and it took a little while to establish a telephone link with Minsk and unfortunately we had to keep you waiting. I would like to ask for your understanding.

    On the 25th Anglo-German consultations, they take place at a very important time in international politics. I would like to use the opportunity here, John, to thank you most warmly for the friendship that you have shown us and the support that you have shown us throughout these times that are so important in the history of our nation and where such painful memories come back into one’s memories. I would like to thank you for what you did on 8 May and I would like to thank you for the very good speech that you gave in Berlin, a speech that was characterised by friendship. On the issues that we discussed, well first of all we agreed on a private visit of John Major and his wife for the autumn of this year and I will be very happy to receive him as my personal guest at my home.

    We talked about the G7, about the preparations leading up to the G7 meeting in Halifax, to the EU meeting in Cannes, about all of the issues that we are going to discuss there, and we were at one in our desire before these important conferences, that is both for Halifax and for Cannes, to come to the closest possible consultation and cooperation between our two governments. And there are a number of priorities that we set for ourselves. First of all drawing the central and Eastern European countries closer to the European Union, legal harmonisation, looking here at the White Book of the Commission to that effect. Both governments have always been at one that drawing the young fledgling democracies of central and Eastern Europe closer to the European Union is one of the pre-conditions for being able to maintain peace in Europe.

    We talked about contacts and the relationship to the countries of the Mediterranean area; we talked about internal and legal policy about Europol and other related subjects; and obviously, and here too we closely cooperate, we talked about unemployment and the employment situation in general, and that incidentally was also a very important issue that loomed large on the agenda of President Chirac and myself last week.

    We also would wish that the Commission will submit the report in such a way to the Cannes meeting that we may be able to discuss the principle of subsidiarity. On the request of both of our governments, a German and a British group of entrepreneurs has brought in a number of proposals on deregulation and the Prime Minister and myself will, in a joint letter to the President of the Commission, submit this proposal for further examination,

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Helmut, thank you very much. Let me just add a few words to what the Chancellor has had to say. We have had a very friendly, very wide-ranging, very candid, very practical and very constructive meeting, and as always it has been immensely enjoyable.

    As the Chancellor said, we spent some time discussing the prospects of a G7 meeting in Halifax, we have had a very close look at some of the ideas that are around for reform of the international financial institutions and the United Nations. We looked particularly at the agenda for the Cannes European Council on deregulation, as the Chancellor said. We have been working together. There has been an Anglo-German business group working together, they have reached some conclusions and we have jointly written to all our fellow Heads of Government in the European Union, and the President of the Commission, sending them a copy of that report with our full support.

    We also discussed transatlantic relations, trade relations and other relations. We are certainly keen on building those up, keen on looking at the prospects for building on the GATT agreement and the advent of the World Trade Organisation, and this is something else that we will continue to return to time and time again in the future. I will not run through all the details of the points the Chancellor mentioned. He set out I think accurately for both of us much of the substance of our discussion.

    The Foreign Ministers have spent this morning talking about Bosnia and the Chancellor and I have spent some time on that as well. Let me just say a word or two about that and what has been happening in the last couple of hours. Clearly the situation is very serious there and there is no doubt that we need to look very carefully at what is happening there at the moment and what will need to happen in the immediate future. I had the opportunity about an hour ago of speaking on the telephone to General Rupert Smith in Sarajevo and he reported on the present situation there, I think, as you know, a substantial number of people have been killed and wounded in the attacks, the precise numbers, some have been reported, but the precise numbers in truth are not yet known and may not be known for a little while yet.

    What is perfectly clear is that what has happened over the last couple of days is immensely serious. The remedy for this overwhelmingly lies with the Serbs. They need to observe the ultimatum that has been set and they need to return their weapons to the collection point.

    A second point I think that needs making very forcibly. Whilst it is necessary for the Serbs to do that, it is also necessary to ask the Bosnian government to restrain themselves and not to add to any of the difficulties that at present are being faced by the United Nations protection forces.

    And the third point I would make I believe is equally very important. I hope there are no more attacks against United Nations personnel, either direct attacks against them or attacks with the intention of taking hostages, at all. I believe that would not be a way for them to proceed. Putting pressure on the nations who have troops there in the protection forces is not the right way for us to proceed at the moment and I hope that is fully understood by the Bosnian Serbs.

    Clearly we have some difficult decisions to face in the near future. The Chancellor and I have sent a message to President Yeltsin asking him to use his influence with the Bosnian Serbs, and after sending the message we managed to find him on the telephone at Minsk, and also had the opportunity of speaking to him and delivering precisely the same message, and I am very hopeful on the basis of that that he will use his influence to try and calm matters down in and around Sarajevo.

    I think for the moment I will leave events at that, return it to the Chancellor. He may want the Foreign Ministers to say a word about their morning discussions and then perhaps we could take any questions you may have.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Allow me to add, if I may, that we also established contact with the French Prime Minister. He is familiar with our message and the text of our message that we sent to Boris Yeltsin, but he is on the road somewhere in France and he is just now coming back to Paris. Klaus Kinkel will immediately try after this press conference to establish contact with him and inform him and I would like to remind all of us of the fact that yesterday night I had a long telephone conversation with President Clinton although all those things had not yet reached that dramatic peak that they have today.

    1. KINKEL:

    As the Prime Minister and the Chancellor said, the crucial issue of the talks between the Chancellor and Prime Minister Major and between my British colleague, Douglas Hurd, and myself was certainly the situation in Bosnia, a situation that has reached a new, dramatic peak particularly in the areas in and around Sarajevo and Tusla. You know that the Serbs massively attacked Sarajevo particularly this morning and there was a very large number of casualties and wounded. We don’t as yet have any substantive figures. Another air strike took place in the meantime and the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and we Foreign Ministers were at one that everything has to be done in order to reach a de-escalation of the situation.

    I had talks in Washington with Vice-President Gore, the Security Advisor Legge and also the Secretary of State, Mr. Christopher and this dramatic peak which the situation had reached loomed large on our agenda. We are in very close contact with the Secretary-General of NATO; before our talks, we had a number of telephone conversations with him and tried to get information on the most recent state of affairs.

    The Prime Minister has already pointed out and the Chancellor also mentioned that a message was sent to President Yeltsin and we finally made telephone contact. This was a message directed to President Yeltsin where we appealed to him to exert his influence on Milosovic to prevent him from supporting the Bosnian Serbs; the message further contained an appeal to Milosovic where we asked him to please do everything to see to it that the border between Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs remains closed. This message called for three very clear-cut objectives: first of all, de-escalation; secondly, the bombarding of the protected areas will have to stop immediately; and thirdly, heavy weapons have to remain in the collection points because there are indications that there too there may be a certain development that would be most unwelcome and most unpleasant and obviously the message said that the taking of hostages will not be in any way successful and that this must be stopped immediately.

    As the Chancellor said, we are in contact with Prime Minister Juppe, and with the Americans and tonight we are going to call them once again. Further steps will be the following:

    The Contact Group foreign ministers will meet Tuesday and Wednesday in Nortvige [phoentic] in Holland and then we will think once again about possible further steps and obviously we will try to make contact with Foreign Minister Kozyrev.

    I do not want to go into details of the military operation. We have been informed by Secretary-General Claus and by General Rupert Smith of the present state of affairs but this obviously is a matter for the military to assess the real situation on the ground and whether further measures will be taken.

    It is undoubtedly a very grave and very serious situation that we want to and will have to try to solve by resorting to political means. Any military solution of the Bosnian conflict, of the situation in former Yugoslavia, cannot and must not be the right way.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY DOUGLAS HURD:

    I do not need to add very much. As Klaus Kinkel has just said, it is clear that the decisions hour by hour on the ground and in the air rest with the NATO and United Nations commanders and as has been said, we have been in very close touch with them hour by hour this morning. Warren Christopher telephoned me first thing this morning in order to express his support for what the UN and NATO had done so far and indicated that it would be necessary, he thought, to do more. That is the view of everybody here and the Prime Minister made clear in Parliament yesterday that we fully support what has been done and that is also the German view so that is support for those who are responsible for these very difficult and dangerous decisions hour by hour on the ground but we have to support them in another way which is to try and bring the maximum pressure on all those concerned to prevent what is happening now which is bad enough – enough people are being killed – from escalating into an even greater war with more suffering, more casualties and the effect on the future of the United Nations effort and that is why the Federal Chancellor and the Prime Minister have sent a message to President Yeltsin, that is why they have talked to him, that is why we are in very close touch with the French and of course with the Americans. The Bosnian Serbs would have been wise to heed the terms of the ultimatum which they received; they would be wise to heed it now.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor, can you tell us how President Yeltsin reacted to the message that he received from you?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    He clearly gave us to understand – and obviously in a way I am adding my interpretation of it and using my own words now – that he considered the situation to be extremely dangerous and he promised to act on the basis of our message in any direction desired in that message. We did not talk about details obviously but both of us talked to him on the telephone and we both impressed on him how serious we thought the situation is. It is obviously a fairly unusual way of proceeding the sort of action which we immediately resorted to which we thought however was a very necessary reaction in view of the circumstances.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you spoke about some difficult decisions to face in the near future. What are those decisions and do they include a decision on whether or not to withdraw?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Over the days ahead, the immediate difficult decisions I had in mind were the difficult decisions to be taken by the commanders on the ground in response to whatever action may be taken against Sarajevo, against the ammunition dumps or against any other target so those were the immediate decisions I had in mind. They are decisions that will not be easy for the commanders. Clearly, if the situation deteriorates, one would have to take a strategic look but let me make clear again what I have said in the past. I think there are two points that are relevant:

    Firstly, for as long as it is possible, for as long as the United Nations protection forces can credibly carry out their humanitarian mandate and save lives, it would be my wish for the protection forces to stay there providing they can do so at acceptable risk to themselves.

    The second point is equally important. If they cannot carry out their mandate at acceptable risk, if the fighting escalates to a level when it is quite impossible, then clearly circumstances could arise when it would not be possible for the United Nations protection forces to remain.

    I emphasise that is not my wish. I believe they have done a superb job there, I very much hope they will continue to stay there but I think everyone on the ground needs to be aware that they are there with a particular mandate, with a humanitarian responsibility and they are not equipped to be in the middle of a full-scale war.

    QUESTION:

    There are reports that President Yeltsin has condemned the latest UN air strike. Can you confirm that, please?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen such reports.

    QUESTION:

    He didn’t express any view to you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We were primarily discussing what can be done to de-escalate the problem there and President Yeltsin undertook, as the Chancellor said a moment ago, to use his best offices.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor or Prime Minister, has any idea been put forward to reposition forces or regroup forces and also to deploy Western forces in order to protect the United Nations troops on the ground there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That would be a matter for the commanders on the ground to advise about, indeed it would be a matter for them to take decisions about. In terms of regrouping and moving the forces, the commander has the responsibility and the authority to do that in the interests of his own troops and his own mission. Whether he is doing that at the moment, I don’t yet knew. I don’t believe he has yet done so. If he believes it necessary, then he would have the authority to do so.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

    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.

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the correspondence between Nelson Mandela and himself on the issue of Lockerbie.

    The Prime Minister: No. It is not my normal practice to do so.

     

    Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill

    Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Prime Minister, what amount of correspondence he has received requesting that extra parliamentary time be given to the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill.

    The Prime Minister: I have received a substantial number of representations on the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill.

     

    Intergovernmental Conference

    Mr. Marlow: To ask the Prime Minister by what date he expects to decide whether Her Majesty’s Government’s submission to the reflections group of the inter-governmental conference should be placed before Parliament either as a White or Green Paper.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 May 1995]: I have made it clear that Parliament will have a full opportunity to discuss the issues relating to the intergovernmental conference before that conference gets under way. Precisely when the conference will start is not yet clear. Meanwhile the Government are examining in detail what the British position should be. The purpose of the study group is explanatory. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will represent the Foreign Secretary. We do not intend to make a single written submission, although we naturally contributed to the Council submission which has been published as Command Paper 2866. Parliament will be kept informed of the study group’s progress.

  • PMQT – 25 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

    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.

    Ms Hoey: Has the Prime Minister any understanding of the deep anger that will be felt in the country at the way in which the directors of the privatised National Grid have used tax avoidance measures to ensure that their wives will have hundreds of thousands of bonus shares? What message does that send to pensioners in my constituency who are struggling to make ends meet?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady may not be wholly aware of what has happened. I have made inquiries to clarify the position. I understand that the only share options granted by the National Grid have been granted to its own directors and staff; but, having exercised those options and purchased the shares, directors have then given them to their wives. As the hon. Lady may know, it is a fundamental principle that transfers of property between husband and wife are free of tax, as they have been for a long time.

    If the hon. Lady and the deputy leader of the Labour party wish to change the position, are they saying that they want to make transfers of property between husband and wife taxable? Are they saying that the independent taxation of men and women should be abolished? Are they saying that widows should no longer be able to inherit property from their husbands free of tax? [Hon Members: –“Answer”.] That is the inevitable principle that follows from the point put by the hon. Lady. Once again, Opposition Members are trying to use a particular issue for their own advantage without understanding the implications of what they say.

    Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Prime Minister has heard of the result of yesterday’s meeting in America between his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the leader of IRA- Sinn Fein. I am sure that he has noted what the leader of IRA-Sinn Fein said: that there can be no progress towards decommissioning until there is complete demilitarisation of everyone–that is, the surrender of arms by Army, police and those who have guns to protect themselves–and that all prisoners must be released. Are the Government prepared to negotiate with the leader of Sinn Fein on those terms?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend met the leader of Sinn Fein yesterday to make a point that was very important for both the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others in Northern Ireland: that the best contribution that Sinn Fein could make to the conference and to Northern Ireland’s prosperity would be to promote peace, and therefore to secure the decommissioning of the IRA’s arms and explosives. That remains the Government’s position.

    Until, in these exploratory talks, there have been practical movements forward in the decommissioning of arms, it will not be possible for Sinn Fein to move to full-scale political talks either with the Government or, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman’s party or any other political party in Northern Ireland. That is the point that we have made repeatedly to Sinn Fein, and it remains our position. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our objective is to move towards taking the gun entirely out of the politics of Northern Ireland. In that, I believe that we have the support of all the mainstream political parties in Northern Ireland and all the people of Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Blair: To return to National Grid, is the Prime Minister aware– [Hon. Members:– “Oh.”] They wanted us to answer the point and now they do not want us to raise it. Is the Prime Minister aware that the issue is not independent taxation between men and women, but remuneration being paid by way of share options so as to avoid income tax? That is what is actually happening in this case. Is the Prime Minister prepared to say that that abuse is wrong and is he prepared to put a stop to it?

    The Prime Minister: Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that I favour employee share options and I favour executive share options. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does too, because that is a direct quote from his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. There is no dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and I or between the two major parties about the desirability of share options.

    In this instance, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) has raised a point that has been the subject of publicity today. Having exercised the share options and purchased shares, a husband passed his own property–the shares –to his wife. The leader of the Labour party seems to be saying that if, having done something of which the leader of the Labour party approves– accepted share options–the husband then does what has been done for many years and passes them to his wife, that should now be taxable. That is quite unlike anything that has happened in the past. If that is Labour’s policy, let the Leader of the Opposition please make it clear.

    Mr. Blair: No, that is not the policy. The only reason why the directors transfer shares to their spouses is that the remuneration is paid by way of share options in order to avoid income tax. That is why they do it. That is the issue: it is not whether share options are wrong or right, it is whether they are taxed as income or as capital gains. Is the Prime Minister prepared to say that, where remuneration is effectively given by way of share options to avoid income tax and only pay capital gains tax, he will put a stop to it?

    The Prime Minister: Capital gains are taxed at the marginal rate when the capital gain is realised. The right hon. Gentleman is effectively saying that he does not wish husbands to pass those rights on to their wives. The transfer of property between husbands and wives–be it shares, property or capital–is tax free.

    Although the right hon. Gentleman is now wriggling because his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor changed his position mid morning because he realised what he had said and what he had done, the truth is revealed yet again by what the right hon. Gentleman has said: Labour hates privatisation and it hates profit. It cannot stand share ownership. Old Labour lurks there as clearly as it ever did. Labour Members cannot stand the fact that some people receive share options and exercise share options as part of their employment remuneration.

    Mr. Blair: Perhaps the Prime Minister does not realise that the National Grid has admitted that it used share options to avoid paying income tax. Why does not the Prime Minister stop defending the greed of a privileged few and stand up for the vast majority of decent British people?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman had better decide whether he is really in favour of share options. The glaring divide between the shadow Chancellor and the leader of the Labour party becomes more apparent day by day. They may sit close together, but clearly they never speak.

    Mr. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today’s announcement of further measures to target taxpayers’ money on making state schools more effective and improving standards? Will he confirm that the Government’s objective is to ensure that all parents are entitled to a good-quality, high-standard state education for their children, not only if they happen to live a couple of boroughs away from a convenient grant-maintained school?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that point. I believe that the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will be widely welcomed up and down the country.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that the deadlines in Sarajevo represent a critical moment for the authority of the United Nations and its commanders in Bosnia? Will he ensure that, if our commanders on the ground in Bosnia conclude that decisive action must be taken, they will receive the full and unswerving backing of not only the Government but the United Nations in New York?

    The Prime Minister: I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view about the importance of the present situation. I am happy to tell him that we have already given that assurance to our commanders on the ground. We made that clear in New York last night and they are aware of our position. The United Nations has also reiterated its full support–by that I mean our commanders will have support for whatever action they may consider necessary in the light of the events of the past day or so.

    Let me add to that point in view of the present situation. We very much wish the United Nations protection forces to continue performing their role. They have saved many lives delivering aid and containing the fighting. I believe the reason for maintaining a force on the ground remains as compelling today as it has been in the past, but all the parties need to be aware that if they continue ground fighting and accelerate it, they may render it impossible for the United Nations protection forces satisfactorily to carry out the mandate that they have been given. I hope that point is fully understood. At present, General Smith and the United Nations forces are very much in our thoughts. They most assuredly have our total support.

     

    Official Visits

    Q2. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Southfleet, Kent.

    The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so.

    Mr. Dunn: What advice would the Prime Minister give the leadership of the trade union, Unison, which may be about to inflict a vicious national strike on the British people? The last time Unison inflicted a strike on the British people–

    Mr. Mackinlay: What has this to do with Kent?

    Mr. Dunn: People are concerned about it in Southfleet. The last time Unison inflicted a national strike on British people, hospitals were closed, schools were shut down, operations were cancelled and the dead were left unburied.

    The Prime Minister: I believe that any form of industrial action in the health service would be bound to harm patients. It is difficult to see how it could do anything else. My hon. Friend has provided a graphic reminder of what happened on a previous occasion. I am perfectly certain that no professional nurse would wish to pursue such action, and I very much hope that that will be the overwhelming view. I hope that the few people involved will set aside the language of trade union confrontation, look at the fair offer that has been made to them by the vast majority of NHS trusts up and down the country, accept it and put the issue behind us.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

    Mr. Illsley: From the Government’s overwhelming defeat in the local elections last month, it is clear that the electorate totally rejected their local government policies. In particular, people rejected the Government notion that Labour authorities are high taxing and high spending. Will the Government now abandon plans to cap the expenditure of local authorities this year?

    The Prime Minister: I have very great doubts about whether people have abandoned the notion that Labour means high taxes, both nationally and locally. If one looks band for band at local taxation last year, one finds that in band C, for example–I take the figures from memory, but I think that they are right–Labour councils taxed about £160 more than Conservative councils. That point will be understood increasingly as people examine their tax bills.

    Mr. Robathan: In the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report on Islington’s social services? If so, he will have found that the Labour party in Islington put political correctness above the needs of the vulnerable and of the children in its care, and above common sense. Does he agree that, in the same way, the Labour party in general puts women-only shortlists and other forms of positive discrimination and political correctness above the interests of the nation–

    Madam Speaker: Order. What other parties do is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I have told the House time and time again that Ministers at the Dispatch Box answer for their policies, not for what other people do. Perhaps the Prime Minister can give some answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I hope that the House will remember in future that Ministers are to be questioned about their responsibilities, not about anything else.

    The Prime Minister: The substantive part of the question followed on nicely from the question asked by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) a moment ago. Like everyone in the House–I would hope–I read the reports about what apparently happened in Islington council and found them extremely disturbing. They show what happens when political correctness runs riot. I believe that tolerance, in that environment, becomes excess. It causes untold suffering for those in need of help. This was a sad example of what happens when the Labour party is in power. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central neglected to mention the activities that went on in Islington, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing them to my attention.

     

    Q4. Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

    Ms Quin: Does the Prime Minister recall his prediction at the 1991 Conservative party conference that Labour would introduce eight new taxes if it took office? How does that claim look now in the light of the 20 new taxes that he and the Government have introduced?

    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Lady should glance at the list of new taxes to which Opposition Front Benchers have committed themselves if they come to government– [Hon. Members:– “Rubbish.”] Opposition Members are right: most of the taxes that they propose are rubbish. Labour is now and always has been the party of high taxation at national and local levels, and while the Opposition continue to commit themselves to more spending on every occasion, they always will be the party of high taxation.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Tribute to Harold Wilson – 24 May 1995

    Below is Mr Major’s Commons statement following the death of the former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. The statement was made on the 24th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

    This morning we heard the sad news of the death of Lord Wilson. As the House well knows, Lord Wilson had been ill for a very long time and had endured that illness with courage and with great good humour. I know that the whole House would wish to join me in sending our sincerest condolences to Mary Wilson, who nursed and cared for him with such devotion for so long, and also to his sons, Robin and Giles.

    I did not know Harold Wilson personally when he was at the height of his powers, but I knew him from afar as a formidable political opponent. I believe that history will remember him for the sharpness and shrewdness of his mind; for his two periods of service as Prime Minister in difficult circumstances; and for his energy and enthusiasm, as well as for his many achievements. And also, perhaps here of all places, he will be remembered for his wit and his humour–often shown to such devastating effect on the Floor of the House. But that is the public man. His friends who knew him well speak also of the private man–of his great personal kindnesses and generosity. He expected loyalty from those around him and he offered it in full measure in return.

    Harold Wilson was a Yorkshireman whose roots mattered to him. His background motivated his politics. His family’s experience during the depression, when his father was unemployed, shaped his politics, his thinking and his future policies. In becoming Prime Minister, he broke through many of the traditional class barriers of the day. I do not believe that it is too generous to describe Harold Wilson as one of the most brilliant men of his generation. He gained an outstanding first-class degree at Oxford. He was an exceptionally young and able don at New college and then a fellow at University college. He worked for William Beveridge on his great study of unemployment. His ability as a statistician was legendary and those who knew him well will recall his remarkable memory, which was displayed with such pleasure so often and to such good effect.

    At the outbreak of war, Harold Wilson’s capacity for incisive thought and rigorous analysis took him to the economic section of the Cabinet Office and then to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. Over the years, by his remarkable work in those positions, he caught the attention of leading Labour party figures such as Clem Attlee. Then, in 1945, at the relatively young age of 28, he was elected for the first time to the House as the Member for Ormskirk. He was quickly given a ministerial post and a mere two years later he became President of the Board of Trade, the youngest Cabinet Minister in the House since 1806.

    As a Minister, Harold Wilson quickly established a strong reputation. He was responsible for the removal of the rationing controls on clothes and textiles that had remained from the war and also for the relaxation of dozens of other regulations. He was active, far beyond his time, in opening up important trade links with Russia.

    In 1950, following boundary changes, Harold Wilson was elected to the seat of Huyton, which he was to represent with great distinction for another 33 years. In 1951 he resigned from the Front Bench over the imposition of health charges before Labour’s election defeat, which, for him, led to 13 long years in opposition. It was in that time that he developed from the brilliant academic to become the sparkling political figure of later years.

    The tragic, untimely death of Hugh Gaitskell brought Harold Wilson to the leadership of his party earlier than he might have expected. His election was widely welcomed. He was recognised as a man of both intellectual and political skills. In choosing his first shadow Cabinet, he displayed his willingness to select people of ability, whether or not they agreed with his point of view. That ability to conciliate–often a scorned attribute, but a necessary one–was displayed continually throughout his leadership of the Labour party. He narrowly won election as Prime Minister in 1964 and secured a large majority in 1966. In government he placed a strong emphasis on technology and innovation, to be carried through with a new emphasis on state planning. His social policies embodied the liberal spirit of the time.

    During six years of government, Harold Wilson faced many difficult problems –the ever-present currency crisis; Northern Ireland; the Rhodesia crisis; controversy over whether British troops should become involved in the war in Vietnam; the uncertainty over whether Britain would or would not join the then European Community; and industrial unrest, particularly in the docks. Those problems faced him continually as Prime Minister. I believe that history will judge that Harold Wilson kept a clear and a cool head in the face of those difficulties. For my generation at least, as observers through television and from a distance, his ever-present pipe became a symbol of tranquillity in times of some turmoil.

    Harold Wilson had much to his credit in those days. He was responsible for the rapid expansion of higher education, including the development of the polytechnics. He was personally involved in, and rightly proud of, setting up the Open university. He was aware of the dangers of excessive concentration of trade union power and he was brave enough to tackle it, alas without the complete support of many of his colleagues at the time. Of course, he was the only British Prime Minister to preside over England’s winning the World cup. He was a remarkable man. He was not ready to give up as Labour leader following defeat in 1970. He was right, and he proved it with two further election victories in 1974. With them, he became the only Prime Minister this century to have emerged victorious from four general elections.

    When Harold Wilson stood down as Prime Minister in 1976, many were surprised, even shocked. Why had he done it? What did he mean by it? The fuss was considerable, and how much he must have enjoyed it at the time. Even those who had tried for so long to unseat him could not accept that he had stood down of his own accord; but he had. He had served longer than any Prime Minister before him this century and it was perfectly natural that he would wish to enjoy his retirement. What was Harold Wilson really like? I have formed my judgment. He was a complex man, certainly, a clever man, a sensitive man, a man who could be bruised and hurt and who never wore the armadillo skin of the fictional politician. He was a man of many achievements and, perhaps above all, a very human man who served his country well and honourably and who has earned, by that, a secure place in its history. In the ledger of life, his credit balance is very high. It is a privilege for me, as one, nominally, of his political opponents, to pay him this tribute and I do so unreservedly.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    North-West Kent

    Q7. Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit north-west Kent.

    The Prime Minister: Although I have no current plans to do so, I hope such a visit will be possible in the near future.

     

    Scotland

    Q8. Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Scotland.

    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May 1995.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

    The Prime Minister: 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.

     

    Intelligence and Security Committee

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a report from the Intelligence and Security Committee on the discharge of its functions under the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that I have recently received an interim report from the Intelligence and Security Committee, setting out the broad pattern of its work to date and outlining some of its future priorities for inquiry. I do not consider that the report contains any matter whose publication would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Secret Intelligence Service, Security Service or Government Communications Headquarters, and I have therefore today placed copies of it, as submitted by the Committee, in the Libraries of both Houses.

     

    Nolan Committee

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek to extend the recommendations of the Nolan Committee concerning the conduct of Ministers and officials to include the Governor of the Bank of England and all senior members of his staff.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.

     

    Antanas Gecas

    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister for what period Antanas Gecas was employed by British intelligence.

    The Prime Minister: It remains the Government’s policy not to provide information on the operations at the security and intelligence agencies.

     

    Majority Shareholdings

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those companies in which the holder of his office is a majority shareholder which (a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the past five years.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 22 May 1995]: None.

     

    Bank of England

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if the statement of Government policy set out in paragraph 5 of the Bank of England press release of the text of the Deputy Governor’s speech to the City branch of the Institute of Directors on 13 December was authorised by him.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 29 March 1995 Official Report, column 640.

  • PMQT – 23 May 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

    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 have further meetings later today.

    Mr. Jenkin: Further to the prior notice that I have given my right hon. Friend on the subject of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, will he reassure the House that, contrary to indications in The Sunday Times this week, the Government will bid for a net retrieval of power from the European institutions? Is not our resolve in this matter an increasingly defining issue between the Government and the Opposition? Does he agree that our determination to secure the powers of the nation state contrast utterly with the Leader of the Opposition, who has nothing but a soundbite and a submissive smile–

    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us make some progress.

    Mr. Jenkin: I see that the yobs are out in force today, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, the Leader of the Opposition’s idea of a nation state is Europe.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of the broad subject that he intended to raise. I did read the speculative story in The Sunday Times , which is speculating on decisions and matters that are still under discussion, which have not remotely been concluded and will not be concluded for some time. The general approach that the Government will take has been set out on many occasions. We believe that Community action should be used only where it is necessary and valuable and should not include going into what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has called the nooks and crannies of daily life. At the IGC, I shall block any attempt to extend Community competence into intergovernmental areas such as foreign affairs, defence and home affairs and I shall aim to strengthen subsidiarity, which has already led to a reduction in Commission activity. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the differences between the Conservative party and the Opposition, and they become clearer.

    Mr. Blair: I welcome the Prime Minister’s assurance that the new committee on Nolan will look at how, not whether, it implements the Nolan recommendations. Can I take it that that includes the specific recommendation that the amount paid to Members of Parliament under outside consultancies will be included?

    The Prime Minister: Let me make it entirely clear to the right hon. Gentleman what I said in the House, without any dissent from him or any other hon. Member, when I set up the committee. I said then: “Recommendations affecting the Members and procedures of this House will, of course, be for the House to decide.”–[ Official Report , 25 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 759.]

    We have now seen the report. I have said repeatedly that I favour greater transparency and accept the broad principles of the Nolan committee. We need to examine how those principles will work and what their implications will be for Parliament. I hope that that can be done on an all-party basis, which would be in the interests of the House, so that the country can see that the House is seeking to live up to the highest standards which I wish it to have and which, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman has also said he wishes it to have.

    Mr. Blair: I welcome that and I take it that that answer ensures that the new committee will look at how but not whether the recommendations are implemented. Can the Prime Minister therefore say whether it is his understanding that the new committee will report before the long summer recess its recommendations on how the Nolan recommendations are to be implemented?

    The Prime Minister: We have set out some detailed proposals on what might be the remit of the committee and they are the subject of current discussion with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). Those discussions must continue with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in the hope that an agreement on that remit is reached. On the speed of reporting to the House, I certainly anticipate that the committee will make rapid progress. I hope that agreement could be reached on publishing at least an interim report before the House rises for the summer recess. The committee itself must determine how rapidly it can discuss the matters in question.

    There is no doubt among those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to read the Nolan committee report that it refers to many matters of great difficulty, on which the Nolan committee believes the House should decide how they are carried forward. This is a matter of great importance to the future of the House and it is vital that it is properly examined and got right.

     

    Q2. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

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

    Mr. Marshall: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, at 6 o’clock last night, the House rejected a Labour-inspired amendment that would have cost the taxpayer £250 million. Is he also aware that, at 6 o’clock last night, the Leader of the Opposition was addressing an audience of City fat cats– [Interruption.] –and promised to renounce the high tax and spend policies that have characterised every Labour Government since the war? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that was the fifth time the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he was wrong? He was wrong on the Common Market; wrong on defence; wrong on industrial relations reform; and wrong on privatisation. Five wrongs do not make a right leader for the country.

    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the coincidence of timing between the Opposition amendment, designed to spend more public money, and the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal to cut inflation and cut down on public spending. I have to say to the House that I am unsurprised by that contradiction, which is by no means the only contradiction between what the leader of the Labour party says and what the Labour party does. Every time we have dealt with monetary policy to restrain inflation, we have been criticised by the Opposition for putting interest rates up. Every time there has been a dispute of some sort, they wish to spend more money on it. Every time we have tried to restrain expenditure, they have called for more expenditure. There is, to put it kindly, a disconjunction between what they say and what they do.

     

    Q3. Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

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

    Mr. Livingstone: Has the Prime Minister had time today to read the latest edition of the “Socialist Economic Bulletin”–[Laughter]– which demonstrates that, since 1979, dividend payments as a proportion of gross domestic product have increased by £22 billion per annum, while manufacturing investment last year was only £12 billion? What can the Government do to ensure that increased dividend payments do not squeeze out productive investment?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be less surprised than others to know that I have, in fact, read the “Socialist Economic Bulletin” –not least because he invited me to do so before answering his question this afternoon. [Laughter.] Old Lambeth connections die hard.

    I believe that the hon. Gentleman understates the importance of dividends, which, with capital growth, are the reason why people invest in the first place. We have at the moment perhaps the best environment for investment in this country that we have had for very many years. Three years of steady growth with low inflation has given companies the stability to take investment decisions in a secure economic environment. We can see now that investment is increasing, and the Confederation of British Industry forecasts manufacturing investment growth of 8 per cent. in the next year.

    Since 1980, United Kingdom investment has grown quite substantially. In the present economic environment, I would expect it to continue to do so.

    Mr. Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is great anxiety about organised crime in this country? Is he aware that the Leader of the Opposition is shortly to take a Labour roadshow to north Tyneside, and would it not be appropriate if that entertainment included the Labour leader’s opinions on the current police investigation into serious allegations of corruption and organised crime in the north Tyneside Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the details to which my hon. Friend refers, but I know the enthusiasm with which the Labour party likes to see matters examined and debated publicly, so no doubt the party itself will wish to hold a public inquiry into any allegations against any aspect of the Labour party.

     

    Q4. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

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

    Mr. Michie: Bearing in mind the sleaze and the conduct of this place, which is a debate that has been going on for some time, if the Prime Minister really wants to demonstrate to the public at large that we are going to get our act together in this place, will he ask the Conservative members of the Select Committee on Members’ Interests to stop blocking the consideration of evidence and remove the Tory Whip, so that we can proceed in a proper, democratic way?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the powers, influence and independence of Committees such as the Members’ Interests Select Committee.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours: And the Whip.

    The Prime Minister: Before the hon. Gentleman shouts himself into trouble, I should like to say that he also knows that the membership of that Committee is approved by the House before it sits.

    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ludicrous to try to set economic tax rates by taking the international average? Was not the import of the Leader of the Opposition’s speech last night simply to try to disguise, in his characteristic way, his intention of increasing income tax rates? I take that because most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have a higher rate of tax than this country. Instead of saying it directly, as usual the Leader of the Opposition tried to disguise it behind words.

    The Prime Minister: It is clear that there was a certain lack of transparency in what the right hon. Gentleman said last night. There is no doubt that the UK top rate of income tax and national insurance contributions is the lowest of any country in the European Union, and we have every intention of keeping it that way. We also have the lowest main rate of corporation tax among the major industrial countries, and the burden of taxes on business in the UK is lower than in any other G7 country except Canada. That is in spite of the increases in taxation that we have had to undertake in the past few years to deal with the expenses following on the recession.

    However, as the right hon. Gentleman is obviously worried about tax levels, I hope that he will demonstrate that, if and when we are able to reduce taxes, by joining us in the Lobby when we do so.

     

    Q5. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May.

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

    Mr. Banks: Would it come as a surprise to the Prime Minister to learn that I am one of his admirers–indeed, I might be his only admirer? In that capacity, does he accept my great anger at the outrageous attack made upon him by Margaret Thatcher who, in her book, likens him to some sort of incompetent train spotter? That is a disgraceful attack and I think that we all feel very strongly about it. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to damn all Mrs. Thatcher’s policies that have got him and his Government into the appalling mess in which they now find themselves?

    The Prime Minister: The fraternity that exists between former Lambeth councillors perhaps does not entirely extend to the hon. Gentleman. It is less of a surprise to hear that he may be an admirer of mine than a shock and a disappointment.

    Mr. Brazier: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern among some Conservative Members at the idea that homosexuals may shortly be admitted to the armed forces? Is it not true that a barrack room or a ship are not just places of work for service personnel but their homes? Should we not take account of the wishes of service personnel in making that decision? I ask for my right hon. Friend’s assurance that he will uphold the promises that were given to the House before legislation to remove the criminal offence of homosexual activity in the armed forces went through Parliament without a vote. Will he assure the House that, if the present court case overturns the status quo, the matter will be brought to the House so that we have the opportunity to reverse the decision?

    The Prime Minister: The House reached a decision some time ago and I do not wish to anticipate the result of the current court case. Clearly, if it produced a different set of circumstances, we would have to examine it.

    As to the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I think that the service chiefs have made their view clear about the matter, and I share that view.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Nolan Committee

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister what has been the cost to public funds to date of the Nolan committee; what payments or emoluments have been made to each member of the committee; what are the anticipated on-going costs; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the Nolan committee’s first report, which was published last week and states that the committee’s total estimated cost to the end of April 1995 was £317,200.

    Lord Nolan, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and Ms Diana Warwick do not receive emoluments for their Nolan committee work as they already receive a salary from other public funds. Other members of the committee were paid a salary of £1,000 per month from November 1994 to April 1995. They are now receiving an attendance fee of £155 per day. Members travel and subsistence expenses are met from public funds.

    The on-going cost of the committee is estimated to be £500,000 a year.

     

    Deregulation

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister what further action he proposes to take to advance the Government’s deregulation initiative.

    The Prime Minister: I have established a new ministerial committee to co-ordinate the Government’s programme of deregulation and consider how the burden of deregulation on business, charities and individuals can be kept to a minimum. Copies of the terms of reference and membership are in the Library of the House.

    MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON DEREGULATION (EDD)

    Composition

    President of the Board of Trade (Chairman)

    Lord President of the Council

    Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

    Secretary of State for Employment

    Lord Privy Seal

    Chief Secretary to the Treasury

    Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, Department of Trade and Industry

    Other Ministers will be invited to attend as necessary.

    Terms of Reference

    “To co-ordinate the Government’s programme of deregulation and to consider how the burden of regulation on businesses, charities and individuals can be kept to a minimum.”

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Comments on the Nolan Report – 20 May 1995

    Below is the summary of John Major’s doorstep comments, made on Saturday 20th May 1995 in South East Cambridgeshire, on the Nolan Report.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In the clamour of current politics it is often difficult to get a reasoned, rational debate. Nonetheless let me try to make some important points about the Nolan Committee.

    1 – I set up Nolan to allay public concern after a series of incidents. I believe public confidence in Parliament and politicians is essential. I care about the reputation of Parliament. It matters. I worry that it has fallen. It will not be rescued by warm words alone.

    I do not believe an internal report by Parliamentarians alone would have convinced the public. The decision to establish Nolan was warmly supported at the time on all sides of the House.

    2 – Nolan should not be misunderstood. It does not ban outside interests; indeed it commends them. It simply makes clear that they must be transparent. I do not just accept the broad thrust of Nolan, I agree with it. Insofar as the recommendations to Government are concerned, after consideration of the detailed implementation, we should generally accept them.

    3 – When I established Nolan last October, I made it clear that recommendations relating to backbench Members of Parliament would be for the House to consider. Nothing has changed. No one challenged that judgement at the time.

    4 – The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties now seem to have changed their mind and be doing so. Their behaviour is pure partisan posturing. They are more intent on turning this report into a party political football, than ensuring it is properly considered by Parliament. I am not going to play that game.

    5 – The Government has moved speedily on Nolan. It was set up promptly. I published Nolan on the day I received it. The House debated it within a week. The Government announced its broad acceptance of the recommendations speedily. We now intend to seek the views of a Select Committee. There has been no undue delay, nor will there be.

    6 – The Select Committee will address the report and the range of questions that arise from it. These are important. Some aspects of Nolan do need careful consideration and accurate definition. They must be examined before specific resolutions can be put to the House. Part of the present problem has arisen because existing rules are not sufficiently clear. The new rules must be incontrovertible. That requires examination by the Select Committee.

    7 – I hope the Opposition will co-operate with this Committee on an all-party basis. If they do not, the Government will consult MPs themselves and frame their own proposals.