The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1996

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Election Campaign – 3 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the election campaign, made during an interview in London held on Wednesday 3rd July 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why he had launched the “New Labour, New Danger” campaign].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are two halves to the approach. Firstly of course is the positive half of what is actually happening in the economy and what we are doing – the educations reforms, the change and growth in the economy; and secondly there are the risks that we see to that approach. So it has been very tough to bring about, we have worked very hard to put the country in what at the moment is a better economic shape than it has been for a very long time.

    The Labour Party are beginning to come into focus. They have changed many of their policies, they have changed much of their oratory and some of their ideas and they are now coming into focus, one can now begin to see what they stand for and what they will really do. And we perceive many dangers in that, constitutional dangers with their Scottish policy, dangers to the economy with some of their taxation and other policies. And what we propose to do is to have a twin-track strategy: firstly of course the positive elements of what we are seeking to do ourselves for the good of the country; and secondly, to point out what we think are the disadvantages in Labour’s approach.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that had the danger of focusing on Labour].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think people are going to see what is happening in terms of the good news. It is pretty noticeable when your mortgage comes down, and it has come down; it is pretty noticeable when your taxes come down, and they have come down; it is pretty noticeable when you get more information about your child at school and a greater series of opportunities and choices for your children. I think people will see that. What hasn’t been so clear in the welter of warm words and warm ideals that we have had from Labour over recent years is precisely what they would do, and what that would mean. And we do intend to focus upon that because I think there is a very wide gulf between some of the aspirations they set out and some of the realities that I believe would follow from their policies.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked where the Labour dangers were].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I will give you several illustrations, if I may? Firstly of course, their Scottish policy on devolution. I understand why they wish to do that and I have no doubt that it is a well meaning policy. But the dangers of actually down the sort of devolutionary route that they propose, with a tax gathering parliament in Scotland, I believe are very profound for the future of the United Kingdom. I believe it will, over a measurably short period of years, set up disputes between England and Scotland that would be very damaging and very difficult to cope with. A complex issue, but I would like to elaborate upon it. Equally, the question of a special tartan tax in Scotland so that people in Scotland pay higher tax than people in England, Wales or Northern Ireland would have a devastating effect on inward investment in Scotland where taxes are higher and they would have to pay more to their workforce. They will go elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Very damaging for Scotland.

    So it is not the motives of the Labour Party I am questioning at all, it is the practical implication of their policies, and that is one illustration. I could willingly offer you others.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether Scotland wanted more autonomy].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a great pride in being Scottish, of course, and that is precisely why we have established the Scottish Grand Committee which will have all the opportunities that would exist in a Scottish Parliament except extra taxation on Scotland. For example, on Friday of this week I will be going to speak to the Scottish Grand Committee, that is all the Scottish Members of Parliament, I will be doing so in Scotland. For the first time in 300 years a British Prime Minister will be going to Scotland to be cross-examined in a debate specifically by Scottish Members of Parliament. Now if the Labour Party’s plans for a Scottish Parliament were established, that wouldn’t happen. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would not go there because he would not be elected to the Scottish Parliament, so they would have no chance to cross-examine the Prime Minister.

    Everything else they could do in a Scottish Parliament they can do in the Scottish Grand Committee under the plans that Ian Lang and I have put forward, refined by Michael Forsyth, with the one exception that there would not be the power to levy extra taxation upon the Scottish people, they are a very proud nation race, and always have been. I believe though that the plans that the Labour Party advocate would be bad for Scotland, and of course that also has an implication for the rest of the United Kingdom as well and I must be concerned about that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was going to Scotland because of the increasing feeling there against Westminster].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is also an illustration of what we have done, what the present Government have done. We established the Scottish Grand Committee precisely in order to address these particular problems, and we are doing similarly in Wales as well. Because in both Wales and in Scotland there is this tremendous feeling that Westminster sometimes seems a long way away.

  • John Major’s Commons Statement on the Stone of Destiny – 3 July 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland. The statement was made on 3rd July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Stone of Destiny.

    The Stone of Destiny is the most ancient symbol of Scottish kingship. It was used in the coronation of Scottish Kings until the end of the 13th century. Exactly 700 years ago, in 1296, King Edward I brought it from Scotland and housed it in Westminster Abbey. It remains–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and hear this statement in good order. There will be hon. Members who will want to be called after the statement. They should listen to it now.

    The Prime Minister: The stone remains the property of the Crown. I wish to inform the House that, on the advice of Her Majesty’s Ministers, the Queen has agreed that the stone should be returned to Scotland. The stone will, of course, be taken to Westminster Abbey to play its traditional role in the coronation ceremonies of future sovereigns of the United Kingdom.

    The Stone of Destiny holds a special place in the hearts of Scots. On this the 700th anniversary of its removal from Scotland, it is appropriate to return it to its historic homeland. I am sure that the House would wish to be assured that the stone will be placed in an appropriate setting in Scotland. The Government will be consulting Scottish and Church opinion about that. The stone might be displayed in Edinburgh castle alongside the Honours of Scotland, Europe’s oldest crown jewels. Alternatively, it might be appropriate to place it in St. Margaret’s Chapel inside the castle or in St. Giles’s cathedral. There may be other options.

    Once those consultations have been completed, the necessary arrangements will be made and the stone will be installed with due dignity in Scotland.

    Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield): I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. I am sure that it will be warmly received by people in Scotland.

    We know that the Stone of Destiny holds a special place in Scottish hearts after 700 years. Obviously, it is part of Scottish nationhood and, by coming back here for the coronation of our Kings and Queens, as it will, it will no doubt also be a symbol of Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom. The return of the stone, therefore, is a welcome recognition of how we can celebrate the unity of the United Kingdom while being distinct and proud nations with differing traditions, histories and cultures. It is a sentiment on which we wish to build in the future–and I hope that we shall not have to wait another 700 years to do so.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the decision. I am glad that he treated the matter with the seriousness that it deserves rather than with the levity displayed by so many of his hon. Friends over a matter that will be regarded as one of great importance in Scotland.

    Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside): My right hon. Friend will be aware that Scone is in my constituency. The ancient capital of Scotland would be proud to have the stone back and I hope that, when consideration is given to its location, its roots will be remembered.

    The Prime Minister: I have mentioned the areas to which the stone might most obviously be returned, but, in consultation, other propositions might be put forward.

    Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): May I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to secure the return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland? I hope that he is under no illusion and that he recognises that it is the settled view of the majority of people in Scotland that they want not just the symbol, but the substance–the substance of the return of democratic control over our internal affairs in Scotland. May I tell the Prime Minister, before he comes north on Friday, that I hope that he will not continue to insult us by suggesting that, although other countries can organise decentralised government–most recently in Spain since the death of Franco–we are somehow incapable of doing the same in the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister: First, I am grateful for the welcome that the right hon. Gentleman has given to the decision. On his second point, the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal for a parliament within the United Kingdom, as the leader of the Labour party says, would mean that Her Majesty’s Ministers who are not Scottish would not be able to appear in that assembly. On Friday, I shall be appearing in the Scottish Grand Committee as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, open to debate and able to be questioned by Scottish Members in Scotland. That would not be appropriate under the plans supported by the right hon. Gentleman.

    Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries): Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement is of supreme importance to the Scots? The return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland will be unanimously and warmly welcomed by Scots and will highlight the close unity, tradition and good will between our two nations. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there will be an imaginative and effective ceremony for the return of the stone to Scotland, which I hope will be placed in Edinburgh castle?

    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend said, the Stone of Destiny is an important part of Scotland’s national identity. After 700 years, it is right to recognise the importance of the stone to the Scottish nation and let it return to Scotland and remain there. Of course, we plan to hold a suitable ceremony at the time of its return and we shall be consulting Scottish opinion as to what might be appropriate.

    Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart): Does the Prime Minister understand that those of us who believe in the establishment of a Scottish Parliament in order to ensure a modern democratic state within the United Kingdom and Scotland, do not believe that the return of a feudal, mediaeval symbol of tyranny is any more than a total irrelevance?

    The Prime Minister: I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman was speaking for many Scots. They will regard what he said as churlish, not least because he is referring to an ancient symbol of Scotland that is well regarded by Scots of all political parties and none. They will be astonished to hear what a Scottish Member of Parliament had to say about one of their most ancient symbols.

    Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people who care about the history of the United Kingdom also care about its symbols, as we care about the symbols in this place? Does he accept that most people will expect the stone to go to St. Margaret’s Chapel in Edinburgh castle, so that it remains within a consecrated building?

    The Prime Minister: St. Margaret’s Chapel is one of the possible prime sites for the stone. It is a matter that will need to be the subject of consultation within Scotland. I have mentioned some of the areas that will be considered as the most obvious sites for the stone when it returns to Scotland.

    Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): Would the right hon. Gentleman accept a criticism and a comment? Is he not wrong in stating that the Crown jewels of Scotland are the oldest in Europe? Is it not a fact that the oldest Crown jewels in Europe that I can recall are the St. Stephen’s crown in Hungary? If I could only remember, there is actually an older Byzantine crown. I think that I am correct in saying that. I am usually correct in most of my utterances. Will he accept my comment that what the ex-leader of the Liberal party said is most important? What we want is not the symbol but the substance of independence in Scotland.

    The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that it is the Labour party’s policy to have independence in Scotland. Perhaps that was just a slip of the tongue. I will accept that as the case if it was. [Interruption.] No, the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) confirms that it is the policy that he and members of his party follow to have independence in Scotland. That point will have been well noted on the Conservative Benches and in many areas of Scotland.

    With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point, I recognise his expertise in these matters. I am certainly advised, as I advised the House, that these are the oldest Crown jewels in Europe. The hon. Gentleman thinks differently. We shall both be able to check. In any event, I look forward to him having the opportunity of going to Scotland to see them in situ.

    Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will my right hon. Friend ensure the return of the touchstone of the sovereignty and independence of this distinct and proud nation through the return of the primacy and supremacy of British law over that emanating from Brussels?

    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of the House letting go of the primacy of British law.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today, but if he had studied his constitutional and political law of Scotland, he would understand that the Stone of Destiny is not the symbol of kingship but the symbol of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, which is enunciated through the declaration of Arbroath. Like others, I argue that, while we welcome the return of this symbol of power, we want the realities of power in Scotland. It may have taken this Parliament some 668 years since the treaty of Northampton to return stolen goods to Scotland, but in actuality the people of Scotland will return to themselves the power of having their own sovereign Parliament very soon.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady also makes no secret of the fact that she wishes to see independence in Scotland. That, of course, would have a profound effect on Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that she is wrong about that. That is one of the distinct political differences between us that will no doubt be debated for some time to come. On the earlier point, I think that, constitutionally, she is wrong.

    Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood): Has my right hon. Friend noted that this important announcement was greeted seriously by the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)? It was immediately denounced by a Scottish Labour Member of Parliament and most of the rest of them laughed. Does not that show what an incoherent shambles the Scottish Labour party is in?

    The Prime Minister: One of the advantages of having the House televised is that people in Scotland will have seen precisely how Opposition Back Benchers–not Front Benchers; on this occasion I am pleased to support the Leader of the Opposition’s behaviour–behave on a matter of great sensitivity and interest to the people of Scotland.

    Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde): Obviously, the people of Scotland will welcome back the Stone of Destiny, which has been a bone of contention for many years. However, I suggest to the Prime Minister that, for every 1,000th person unemployed in Scotland, he gets a bagpiper, and we take that stone and march from one end of the country to the other with at least 200 unemployed bagpipers who have suffered under this Government. Perhaps that will be the stepping stone to a Labour Government and then a Scottish parliament, one which represents and looks after the interests of the people, not a token artefact; real stones for building houses, that is what our people want.

    The Prime Minister: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman call the Stone of Destiny a token artefact. That is his view of the Stone of Destiny, and that will be well noted in Scotland.

    The hon. Gentleman will know that unemployment has been falling consistently in Scotland primarily because of inward investment into Scotland that would not have taken place but for the Government’s policies. I suggest that when we have that piper, all the people in Scotland who have new jobs–good jobs, permanent jobs, jobs with a proper career–follow that piper, instead of the people who were in jobs that were kept there only by Government subsidy, jobs with no future, which was the position before 1979.

    Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr): Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents will welcome the return of the stone to Scotland? They will also welcome the commitment that the stone will play a part in future coronation services. My right hon. Friend obviously recognises that it is symbolic of Scotland’s part in the Union. Does he agree that there is no chance of him taking steps that will damage the Union, unlike Opposition Members?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend implies, the stone is the property of the Crown and will be returned to the coronation chair to take its place in the ceremony of the crowning of any future sovereign, who would be King of England and, of course, Scotland. To that extent, it symbolises the unity of the United Kingdom, and it is entirely right that the property of Her Majesty the Queen should be placed wherever in Her Majesty’s kingdom is deemed most appropriate.

    Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): Was this gesture prompted by political motives, or will it be seen in future years as the first in a series of generous gestures to countries in and outwith the multinational state of the United Kingdom? Are we likely to see the return of the Elgin marbles, for example?

    The Prime Minister: This gesture was prompted by the 700th anniversary of the stone’s removal from Scotland, and I believe it appropriate for it to return to Scotland for those particular reasons. That is not likely to be followed in totally different circumstances by the return of artefacts such as the Elgin marbles. That is not the case.

    Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both the wisdom and the symbolism of what he has announced today. After we have listened to some of the comments of Labour Back Benchers who have ridiculed this step, is it not worth reminding the House that the stone was forcibly removed from the abbey by Scottish nationalists on Christmas morning 1950? Surely that shows the forceful power that is attached to the symbolism of the stone. Its return now should surely be seen as a sign of unity, not one of dissension and ridicule.

    The Prime Minister: I believe that that is the case and that that is the way in which this will be viewed by most people, especially those who will have been somewhat shocked by the behaviour of some hon. Members this afternoon.

    Several hon. Members rose–

    Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Group of Seven Summit

    Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the G7 summit at Lyon.

    The Prime Minister: I attended the Lyon summit on 27 to 29 June with my right hon. and learned Friends, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    I have placed in the Library of the House the communique, the chairman’s statement and other statements and documents issued by the summit.

    The summit started with a discussion of economic matters among the G7. In President Yeltsin’s absence, we were joined by the Russian Prime Minister, Mr. Chernomyrdin, for a discussion of wider international issues. After the formal conclusion of the summit, we held a meeting with the United Nations Secretary-General and the heads of the International Monetary Fund, World bank and World Trade Organisation to discuss the role of the international institutions, in particular on development.

    On the first evening we agreed and issued a declaration on terrorism, condemning the appalling attack in Dhahran and other recent terrorist outrages. We pledged ourselves to fight terrorism by all legal means and agreed that the relevant Ministers should meet in Paris in July to discuss further action. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary plans to lead the United Kingdom delegation.

    Discussion of the world economy demonstrated the extent to which the United Kingdom’s economic policy agenda is now shared by all our partners in the G7. Although growth has slowed in some countries since last year, it is picking up again. Unemployment remains higher than many of us would wish, particularly in continental Europe, but we agreed that the way to bring it down was by liberalising labour markets and through other supply side measures. This is reflected in the communique’s endorsement of the conclusions of the G7 meeting in Lille earlier this year to discuss employment issues.

    There was also consensus on the policies necessary to maintain international monetary stability. We endorsed the work done by Finance Ministers. Their report makes it clear that the key to stability is not management or fixing of exchange rates but sound domestic economic policies.

    In Halifax last year we agreed steps to make the international financial institutions more effective. Many have now been taken and we welcomed the enhancement of the IMF’s surveillance capacities and the agreement to increase the resources currently available to it under the general arrangement to borrow.

    We recognised, however, the need to improve the co-operation between regulators of financial markets in the light of growth in the volume and speed of transactions. We agreed to study in more detail UK ideas for “lead regulators” of internationally active financial institutions. Officials will meet soon to discuss detailed proposals and Finance Ministers will report back to the Denver summit. We also agreed to co-operate more closely in combating financial crime.

    We also reviewed progress in reforming the UN. Significant steps had been taken: 1,000 jobs have been cut, with high level posts reduced by 23 per cent.; these were 25 per cent. fewer staff than 10 years ago; and the 1996-97 budget incorporated a 10 per cent. cut in real terms. But much remains to be done and we agreed to review the situation at next year’s summit. In particular, a rationalisation of the UN’s role in development is necessary to avoid duplication and overlap between its various agencies.

    Under President Chirac’s theme of globalisation, and with valuable contributions from the heads of the IMF, World bank and UN, we looked at the problems of poorer countries and how they could best be helped. In particular, we focused on the countries of sub-Saharan Africa.

    We agreed that in the long run no amount of aid would help unless these countries were willing to help themselves. Aid nevertheless has a crucial role to play, as long as it is effective. It must therefore continue to be conditional on sensible adjustment policies and good government. In particular, we agreed that bilateral donors should reinforce the international financial institutions’ efforts to discourage unproductive expenditure by modifying their own aid and export credit policies. Aid should also be targeted at the poorest and focused on basic human needs such as health and education.

    Following up initiatives originally launched by the UK, including ideas floated in 1994 in Valetta, the summit endorsed further steps to offer a number of highly indebted poor countries an exit from their unsustainable debt burdens. The IMF will offer more concessional lending from the enhanced structural adjustment facility, to be funded primarily by optimising the management of the IMF’s own reserves. The World bank has offered to contribute in the order of $2 billion from its own resources to this initiative. We called on bilateral creditors to improve on the existing Naples terms which allow remission of up to 67 per cent. on a country’s debts.

    In discussion of trade, we reaffirmed our desire for further liberalisation on the agenda for the forthcoming meeting of World Trade Organisation Trade Ministers in Singapore, including new tariff initiatives. Many of us made clear to President Clinton our deep concern at recent US legislation of a extraterritorial nature relating to Cuba. Unilateral measures of this kind are a serious threat to an open world training system.

    We discussed a wide range of global and political issues with Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. He briefed us on the prospects for the second round of the presidential elections in Russia. We welcomed the progress made on nuclear safety and security at the Moscow summit last April, and urged all countries to examine closely the 40 recommendations on combating transnational organised crime drawn up by our experts following the remit we gave them in Halifax.

    There was considerable discussion of environmental issues. We agreed it was essential to maintain the impetus following from Rio and to play a positive role in the UN General Assembly’s special session on the environment next June.

    In pursuing non-proliferation, we affirmed our undertaking to conclude a comprehensive test ban treaty by the start of the next session of the UN General Assembly. We also called on all states to make every effort to secure a global ban on the proliferation and indiscriminate use of anti-personnel land mines, and welcomed the bans already adopted by some countries, including the UK, on the production, use and export of these weapons.

    A separate declaration was issued on Bosnia and Herzegovina which emphasised that the prime responsibility for implementations of the Dayton agreement lies with the different communities and their leaders, and underlined the importance of the elections due to take place on 14 September. These should take place on time, in free and fair conditions. We also made clear our insistence that Karadzic step down immediately and permanently from all public functions and take no part in governmental decisions. We reaffirmed the importance of all those indicted by the international war crimes tribunal appearing in The Hague for trial. We warned of the costs of non-compliance with Dayton in terms of sanctions and the availability of economic assistance. We also pledged our full support for Carl Bildt, the high representative, and for efforts to accelerate economic reconstruction in order to encourage co-operation and reconciliation between the different communities.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

    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.

  • PMQT – 2 July 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government’s attacks on the Labour party are being scrapped because they were not hurting and not working?

    The Prime Minister: Obviously, our campaign has already worked and already hurt new Labour. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me explain precisely why: new taxes on jobs, on Scotland, on parents, on employers, on shareholders; new chaos in schools, in hospitals, on roads; and new weakness in defence and in Europe. That campaign will run and run.

    Sir Anthony Grant: Should the Government not be congratulated on embarking upon the long overdue reform of the legal aid system? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has been widely abused and, too often, used for blackmailing purposes? Does he further agree that it would be disastrous if Britain had litigation on the scale of the United States, where everyone seems to be suing everyone else?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will publish a White Paper setting out the Government’s plans to reform the legal aid system in England and Wales. It is right that we should ensure the proper use of money, which is why we believe that legal aid should be directed towards those whose need is greatest. That means stopping weak or undeserving cases being pursued at public expense.

    Mr. Blair: In respect of the sale of Ministry of Defence homes, will the Prime Minister confirm the following facts that have emerged? Not only is the MOD guaranteeing the property developer the full market rent for 25 years: on top of that, if the aggregate rents fall beneath a specified minimum the taxpayer is guaranteed to make up the shortfall for each of the 25 years; on top of that, every year a certain quantity of vacant homes will be made available to the property developer to sell at a profit; and on top of that, the property developer can exchange the sites of MOD homes for comparable sites, without the consent of the tenants. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in each of those four respects my understanding is right and, if so, what is the justification for that extraordinary deal?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the two most salient facts. [Interruption.] All the details will be made plain when the sale is concluded. He has overlooked, first, the extra £100 million released by the sale to provide better homes for the services throughout the United Kingdom and, secondly, the £1.5 billion or thereabouts that will be available to the Exchequer for other resources. He has a lot to say about how he is going to be stringent on public expenditure, but at the first difficult decision he wants to toss away about £1.5 billion.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister says that we should wait until the sale is concluded. With all due respect, I think that we should know the details now. It is precisely the worry about public spending that leads me to put this question. The right hon. Gentleman says that the services will get £100 million, but will he confirm that over the next 25 years there will be a recurring liability to the taxpayer–

    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

    Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he has not disputed a single one of the four points that I put to him. Will he say which of those four points is wrong and, in particular, whether the Government are guaranteeing not just a market rent but that if the aggregate of rents falls beneath the specified minimum the taxpayer will be obliged to make up the shortfall? We should know how much it will cost in future years.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman still does not understand. This is going to yield substantial resources for the Exchequer. With the shadow Chancellor sitting next to him, I am surprised that he so lightly tosses £1.5 billion aside. There is no doubt that all he has to say about stringency in public expenditure is for public consumption but will not stand up to the first whiff of controversy when it comes to decisions. We are negotiating a good deal for the taxpayer, now and in the future, and a good deal for the service man–now and in the future–as in due course the right hon. Gentleman will be forced to acknowledge.

    Mr. Blair: With all due respect, the Prime Minister is talking about the amount of money that he will get in this financial year, but we are asking the question because we expect to be dealing with these problems in future years. That is the difference between the short term and the long term, between the Tory party and Labour. Will the Prime Minister say which of those four facts he denies? Is not the truth of the matter that he is attempting to boost the capital sum in this financial year for pre-election purposes while leaving a recurring liability to the taxpayer for years to come for a sale that no service men or women want?

    The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman has just done is to advance the precise argument against the windfall tax that he himself proposes. Perhaps he will now withdraw the windfall tax, which the shadow Chancellor has spent on three or four occasions already. The right hon. Gentleman still misses the substantive point: it is to provide better accommodation for our service men and that is what it will do, both now and in the future. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not think that that is a worthwhile proposition.

    Mr. Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the police on the success of their Euro 96 operation? Does he agree that this showed Europe at its best, acting in harmony and co-operation, and does he think it likely that there will be any plans to prosecute for racial incitement?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the way in which Euro 96 was policed and about the behaviour of the overwhelming majority of people. I had the pleasure of attending the final and of hearing from football administrators across Europe how much they admired the way in which the competition had been run and the behaviour of the crowds at football grounds across the country. I very much hope that this will help us to obtain further such competitions. Prosecutions are, of course, a matter for the police, but I am sure that they will have noted what my hon. Friend said.

    Mr. Ashdown: Further to the Prime Minister’s answer to a previous question, does not a large part of the cost of our legal aid come from inefficiencies at all levels in the legal system? Why do the Government not attack those inefficiencies instead of attacking access to justice for ordinary people?

    The Prime Minister: We are trying to ensure that people have proper and equitable access where there is a need for it. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the legal aid system has very few friends at the moment because of the way in which it operates, and it is right that we should examine it in a White Paper and reform it, which is what my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor proposes to do. His plans will ensure better value for money, with the right services going to the right people, and greater fairness between legally aided people and their opponents.

    Mr. Sykes: May I ask the Prime Minister a question about Scotland? He will be well aware that the people of Scotland have much in common with the people of Yorkshire, chiefly in the fact that we will not wantonly part with hard-earned cash. Will my right hon. Friend tell the Opposition that that is why the Scots will never, in a month of Sundays, vote for a tax-raising tartan parliament?

    The Prime Minister: The speed of the Opposition’s changes on that policy become more bewildering day by day, so it is not at all clear what their policies will be by the end of this week or the end of next week. What we have seen in the past week or so illustrates clearly the total absurdity of the plans that the Labour party has been preparing for a long time but apparently has not thought about. Labour spokesmen have answered none of the questions asked here or in Scotland about that policy because they have no credible answers to them.

     

    Q2. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Sutcliffe: Does the Prime Minister agree with the right hon. Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) that there is a “get Portillo” campaign–a dirty tricks campaign–in the Tory party? Does he not think that such a serious issue–

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking the Prime Minister about policies for which he is responsible.

    Mr. Sutcliffe: I thought that the Defence Secretary was the responsibility of the Prime Minister.

    Should such a serious issue as homes for the families of service men and women who serve this country so well be used as a political pawn by contenders for the Prime Minister’s job?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, like me, is determined to ensure the best possible accommodation for service men, and to ensure that an extra £100 million is available to be spent on them. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about criticism of one Member against another, I suggest that, after the past few days, he should begin to protect his own leader.

     

    Q3. Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the international influence and unity of the kingdom, the interests of England and the practical needs of his constituents and mine, will be assisted by radical constitutional change? Does he think that it was just a coincidence that, immediately after his strongly argued speech on the constitution, the Opposition’s policies collapsed in disarray, posing a multitude of new dangers for our nation?

    The Prime Minister: It is only the beginning of the collapse of those policies; there will be more progressive collapses to come. Whatever U-turns the Opposition continue to perform on their devolution policies, their policies for a devolved, tax-raising parliament in Scotland are bad news for the United Kingdom and bad news for Scotland, and they will prove to be bad news for the Opposition–of that I have no doubt.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Hain: Is the Prime Minister not ashamed of the way his party’s £10 million attack on new Labour today stooped to exploiting the blindness of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)? Will he instruct his party chairman to withdraw that disgraceful attack and exploitation and apologise immediately?

    The Prime Minister: No one would conduct such an attack. There are ample policies in new Labour to attack, and those are the policies that we find distasteful and wrong. They are concerned about controls to take rights away from parents, they are producing taxes that they are trying to hide, and they would produce chaos in our public services. Now that we have been able to focus on what the allegedly new Labour party actually stands for, we can identify its dangers and make sure that everyone is aware of them. New Labour and the new dangers will become very apparent to everyone, and it will be the policies that we shall attack, because they are wrong and damaging.

     

    Q5. Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.

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

    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the average family in this country will be £450 a year better off by next April as a result of the tax cuts announced by the Government? Can my right hon. Friend think of any good reason why the average family should trust and risk the Labour party’s policies for tax and spend?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that growth in the economy and lower taxes mean that the average family will be £450 better off this year, even after taking account of inflation. I can also make it clear to the average family that inflation is down, interest rates are down, unemployment is down, investment, exports and production are up and the prospects for individuals as well as for families are brighter than they have been for very many years.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 July 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st July 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Health and Safety

    Mr. Ian McCartney: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the cost in each of the past five years of (a) sick pay and (b) compensation paid to employees of his Department or their families, or members of the public, as a result of (i) minor, (ii) major and (iii) fatal injuries related to the work of his Department, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000;

    (2) on how many occasions in each of the past five years health and safety problems in his Department and its agencies have been reported via internal monitoring; and on how many occasions the Health and Safety Commission has become involved;

    (3) how many (a) minor, (b) major and (c) fatal injuries have been suffered by staff in his Department and its agencies in work-related incidents in each of the past five years, showing in each year how many were related to information technology and giving details of all incidents involving fatalities;

    (4) what was the cost in each of the past five years of rectifying working conditions that were the responsibility of this Department and its agencies, to bring them up to acceptable health and safety standards, detailing incidents involving information technology and additionally those involving expenditure of more than £5,000.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 27 June, Official Report, columns 189-92.

    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the G7 summit in Lyon.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Osnabruck Mortar Attack – 29 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Osnabruck mortar attack, made during an interview in Lyon held on Saturday 29th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the IRA were behind the Osnabruck attack].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The presumption must be that it is the IRA, but that is not yet confirmed. But the nature of attack – mortar from a small van – suggests very strongly that it was them. Thankfully no-one was injured. I think what this does yet again, if it proves to be the IRA, as I suspect it is, is indicate that they are becoming more and more isolated.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had information from the security services or his own instincts about such an attack].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we unsurprised that there has been more, and it is conceivable there will be yet more. But one can never be certain quite when and how they will attempt this sort of exercise.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Sinn Fein/IRA had given up on the peace process].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is very difficult to say. The psychology of the way they work is always very difficult to judge. Certainly there are different views prevailing within the IRA, of that we are certain, and at the moment the predominant view seems to be that they believe they will make some progress by this sort of terrorist attack. That is a fatal misjudgement on their behalf, it is a misjudgement of the British Government, it is a misjudgement of the British people and it is a misjudgement of international opinion as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether internment would be considered].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a range of alternatives, I don’t wish to run through them and I am sure you will understand why not. But as far as matters like internment have been concerned, we have never ruled those out.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Sinn Fein could still re-enter the peace talks at this stage].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Every activity, every single attack divorces them further from the mainstream political parties and their willingness to accept them into the talks process. So the concept that they could enter into a range of bombing atrocities of the sort we have seen at Manchester, and now I think at Osnabruck, and then walk in the talks is plainly nonsense, nonsense because it wouldn’t be acceptable to the British and Irish governments, and nonsense because it would not be acceptable to the other parties either.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he felt personal despair at the situation].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not despair, certainly not, because the gains that have been made I think are very real. For the first time, the IRA are really becoming isolated in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland, they have lost the support that they had internationally, that certainly means they will losing a very large part of the funding. They are shrinking in the view of many people who previously supported them. That I think is extremely good news and from the IRA’s point of view they must be extremely worried about that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Sinn Fein and the IRA needed to be separate].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Sinn Fein take a rather curious position. On one hand they say we are nothing to do with the IRA – well that is patent nonsense – there is a great intermingling of membership right at the top, they are both sides of the same coin and anyone with the slightest knowledge of Northern Ireland and the whole affair knows that they well. If Sinn Fein say they are nothing to do with the IRA then really they are a very small part of the Northern Ireland political process and have no real influence. Their important is the fact that many people believe they do have influence over the IRA. Well if they do have influence over the IRA, they had better use it, and if they don’t use their influence then it is most unlikely that anyone is going to wish to see them enter into the talks.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Lyon – 29 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Lyon, held on Saturday 29th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, does the Osnabruck attack prove the peace process is over?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We don’t definitely yet know that it was the IRA. I think the presumption must be that it was the IRA, it was certainly the sort of mortar that they seem to have used in the past, so I assume that it was them. I think it just indicates the extent to which they are isolating themselves, isolating themselves from the process, isolating themselves from world opinion.

    QUESTION:

    Are they excluded from the process now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the practical point is that nobody is going to sit down with them. If they suddenly say, well we have now decided to stop, I think the other political parties, as well as the British and the Irish governments, are going to say, well how do we know that this is a complete stop, what are you playing at? They have had every opportunity to take a full part in the process. I hope that we are going to hear from Sinn Fein a complete and total condemnation of what happened, if it turns out to be the IRA. But we may have to wait for that.

    QUESTION:

    Will you be raising it today at the summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We discussed it last evening. I heard about it during the dinner we had and we discussed it last evening.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to cease British Government contacts with Sinn Fein now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We don’t have any practical contacts with Sinn Fein, except at local council level where there are elected local councillors and they play their part as part of the elected local process. There is no further contact beyond that.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you about George Gardiner?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a matter that is now behind us. I am glad it is behind us. We all have a job to do, everyone in the Conservative Party, to get together and win the next election, and that is clearly what we are going to do now.

    QUESTION:

    What about Mr Karadzic and continued Bosnian Serb defiance, can this summit do anything about that in particular?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will be discussing this this morning and I think it is a very important issue. There is no doubt that Karadzic has to go, I don’t just mean go and leave a place-man behind him, I mean he has to get out of the political process completely or, in my judgement, we cannot have satisfactory elections and we can’t proceed with the Dayton Accord satisfactorily. So I hope we are going to address that this morning. And I hope it will be clear that if Karadzic does not go, that there will be some response, and I think the right response would be sanctions, perhaps initially on Republic Srpska, perhaps also on the FRY, but certainly a response if it is clear that Karadzic isn’t genuinely going and leaving the process.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Ken Clarke – 29 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ken Clarke, held in Lyon on Saturday 29th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just try and summarise some of the things that have happened over the last couple of days at this summit. The Chancellor set out a number of issues yesterday, and I won’t repeat those, though of course we will be happy to answer questions on them.

    At the outset, one of the things we most wished to discuss was the question of terrorism. That thought was enhanced by what had happened in Dhahran, and was certainly carried forward by what happened in Osnabruck last night. The declaration that we have issued against terrorism is really the continuation of action we have taken in the past, and a forerunner of action that we anticipate to take in the future. There is a strong declaration that we have issued, with a significant plan dealing with crime, not just terrorism but crime in the generality. And the essential purpose of that is to bridge different judicial systems and try to help the law enforcement agencies in different countries in practical ways.

    We want to make sure, as far as we can, that there is no opportunity either for international criminals or terrorists to move from country to country and find a particularly easy climate in which to live.

    We agreed also, on the back of our discussions, that senior Ministers would meet in July, probably at Foreign Secretary/Home Secretary level as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, to examine carefully what of a practical nature can be done to coordinate the activities against terrorism. The purpose of this is absolutely straightforward. We just want to make life intolerable for terrorists in every conceivable way that we can so there is no hiding place for them. A lot of preparation is going on and I hope that meeting in Paris in July will bring forward some more practical proposals.

    The Chancellor set out yesterday the substance of the economic communique which represents a great deal of British thinking over recent years. I think the area that I am most pleased about is the extent to which it supports the UK agenda on jobs and job creation, and the vitally important fact that we need to continually liberalise labour markets if we are to try and get an increasing proportion of our people back in work. There are something like 18 million adults who are at present unemployed in the European Union alone, and clearly that is far more than is comfortable and we need to take whatever supply side measures are necessary to try and ease more of them back into productive employment.

    There was also a consensus on the approach that we have adopted in the United Kingdom to monetary stability through domestic policies, rather than the old concept of seeking to control interest rates. And that again is a change of thinking we have seen over recent years for one that we very much welcome in the United Kingdom.

    One area that is now going to give rise to a good deal of extra work, was the agreement on the need to clarify the role and improve the coordination between regulators and the financial markets. We have had a number of instances – Barings and of course on a different sort of the scale the problems in Mexico – where the degree of regulation internationally perhaps hasn’t been as good as it might have been. The United Kingdom have been looking at ideas on the prospect of having Lead Regulators who would have a coordinating role through a group’s activities, albeit in different countries. That met with a good deal of support amongst our colleagues here and it has been agreed that that will be followed up speedily after this summit at official level, and I hope we can get again some practical proposals.

    We had some discussions this morning on various ways of assisting poorer countries. A large number of propositions were put forward. I think some points were universally agreed – the necessity of continuing to discourage unproductive, generally military expenditure in developing countries; an endorsement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s multilateral initiative on debt, the latest of a series of initiatives, the Toronto terms some years ago, Trinidad terms and very substantial write-offs of debt [indistinct], we would personally be perfectly prepared to go further than the Naples agreement, writing off 67% of the debt for the poorest countries, and I hope at some stage we will be able to make further progress. There was also agreement to urge the Paris Club creditor countries to go beyond Naples and I illustrated my support for that and I hope that will be forthcoming.

    We had a further discussion on United Nations reform, which was one of the great themes of the Halifax summit last year, and I think will probably be a theme of the summit next year in the United States. A good deal of progress has been made but there is self-evidently a great deal still to be done. And everyone placed a very strong emphasis on continuing the drive for reform and greater efficiency.

    Both the Foreign Ministers and the Heads of Government separately spent a considerable amount of time on the present circumstances and the prospects in Bosnia, with a special interest in the Dayton process. Very strong support for the Dayton process to work, and a complete unanimity of view that the pressure needs to be kept up to remove Mr Karadzic from politics in the Republic of Srpska. By remove him, I emphatically do not just mean remove his name but leave his influence, we are concerned with removing his name and his influence, because without that successful removal, our judgement is there is much less chance of elections taking place satisfactorily and the Dayton agreement being satisfactorily applied.

    I think there is little doubt now that in the event that Mr Karadzic does not withdraw completely and satisfactorily, that there will be a very swift coming together on the need to re-impose sanctions to ensure that he does go. That I think is a universal view.

    We spent some time also on the Middle East process. I am not sure that there is a great deal fresh to report except the universal feeling that whatever support needs to be given, both to the Israelis and for the Palestinians and others, to ensure that that process keeps on track is a desirable effort. Particular concern was expressed by a number of people about the conditions in Gaza and the particular problems faced by the Palestinian authority. We very much hope that further progress can be made.

    The Prime Minister of Russia, Mr Chernomyrdin, joined us last evening, reported on the present state of play in the Russian elections whilst they wait for the second round to take place very shortly, and on the prospects for Russia thereafterwards. I don’t think there is a great deal I particularly wish to say about that.

    I will invite the Chancellor to say a word about gold sales and a little more about financial regulation, and then we will endeavour to field any questions you may have.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    Just on the two specific things within our economic and employment agenda that we took forward on this occasion, firstly gold sales is all part of this dealing with the need to lift the burden of debt from the very poorest countries which are now performing well, but can only make their economies go ahead if they can get rid of a burden of past debt which they are never actually going to be able to discharge.

    The Prime Minister and myself have been running a kind of relay race on this really, because when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer the Toronto Terms and other things he touched upon, added detail as he went through, all went back to his time as Chancellor, and what is going on at the Paris Club now, building on the Naples Terms, goes back to that – 67 percent relief on debts being given to some of the countries we have in mind, the British would go to 80 percent if we wished – but all that is the fruition of British initiatives of some years ago. We are now dealing with multilateral debt and I explained at a press conference yesterday that we had made further progress, because we have already committed ourselves to concluding this in the autumn at the annual meeting of the IMF and the World Bank.

    I discussed yesterday the terms of the communique, which the press I think have already sussed out the nuances of. I discussed it with Michael Camdessus and with Jim Wolfensen who were interested in how this had come to fruition, together with other Finance Ministers who were here.

    It only has one meaning, that we are going to go now for more concessional terms, for the ESAF, that we are going to finance primarily out of the IMF. If necessary they will manage their reserves and I think Michael Camdessus agreed with myself and my colleagues from the other countries who have been on board, that that means they are going to sell gold unless those who disagree can come up with something better, and no-one can think that there is anything better actually available. So that is where we were I think, getting near to fruition on our efforts on multilateral debt.

    The financial regulation is important. Again, it is important to see these meetings as flowing one to another, because we already have the G10 banks and the financial regulators around the world improving their collaboration. That collaboration has got to get better in the modern world as you have so many multinational institutions operating in marks throughout the world. Somebody has to be in charge somewhere of getting all the regulators together to take the necessary action, particularly in a crisis where you move quickly. So the British idea of a Lead Regulator has supporters, it is coming along and it will emerge at another of these meetings in due course.

    The employment and economic agenda is very much in line with British thinking. We have published a policy on monetary stability which supports the approach we take to those things and doesn’t take us back to the grand management of exchange rates. Our approach to employment policy, that in the modern world you need a flexible labour market, is accepted by Finances Ministers, as well as their Heads of Government and Foreign Secretaries at a gathering of the big seven countries of this kind.

    I am sure you all agree that this G7 Summit shows that the British are serious players in these gatherings of the big 7 countries of the world. We have a clear view of our role in the world, we have worldwide responsibilities. We also have the economic clout because we are one of the better performing G7 countries to be able to make a real contribution.

    And so I think this was a success in Lyon, but there was a big British hand in the discussions in each of the three fora where things took place.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (David Buchan, Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, on Bosnia and Mr Karadzic, is there any kind of deadline given for him to get out of Bosnian/Serb politics? There is some talk that he has been given the deadline of Monday to resign from his newly elected post? Chancellor, is the idea of a Lead Regulator someone would could be appointed to take charge in a certain area of financial markets, or is it simply that there would be an agreement when a crisis came up that someone would be sort of pre-designated to take charge?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the Karadzic point, there is no formal deadline set out in the communique. Our expectation is that we will hear something Mr Karadzic literally within days, by Monday or so, and if we do not then I would expect we would take action very speedily thereafter.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    And the Lead Regulator, the idea is that you have a Lead Regulator for a particular big multinational institution, not a section of the market, but that in the regulation that has to take place of some large organisation that worldwide participates in the banking system or the financial markets of many countries, whilst all countries will of course regulate the activities of that multinational organisation within their jurisdiction, they will work together closely, they will exchange information and one Lead Regulator in one country will be responsible for pulling together the activity of them all, so all the time, not just when there is a crisis, all the time when regulating. Of course if you ever had a crisis that affected one of the world’s big players, then the lead regulator would be responsible for calling the meetings and coordinating the global response. We now have, I won’t name any company or bank, but we have based in several countries huge organisations, perfectly respectable organisations, playing a very big role in the world’s financial markets. And it is conceivable that a crisis in one of those could have a systemic effect if the global regulators weren’t up to the mark in handling all the time the regulation of their affairs and reacting in a crisis.

    QUESTION (Barry Wood, VOA):

    When you say there is unanimity on sanctions on Bosnia, could you indicate what those sanctions would be and who they would be imposed against? Just the Republic of Srpska or against Belgrade? And is there consensus within the G7 that Yugoslavia should be kept out of the IMF until Karadzic is out of power?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first point, the question of sanctions, that would be the subject of further discussion if and when Mr Karadzic doesn’t go very speedily. But I can certainly set out for you the British proposal. The British proposal would be that sanctions in the first place would be imposed upon Republika Srpska, and if that was not rapidly followed by action, we would certainly be prepared to extent those to the FRY. But that is a matter for determination, it is not yet determined finally amongst colleagues and there are different alternatives that are still floating around, but I think they would be speedily resolved as necessary.

    On the second point, I think that is the general position, we would need some further progress before we would be happy with an entry into the IMF.

    QUESTION (Ian Black, Guardian):

    Have you any further thoughts on the question of the Secretary Generalship of the UN following the American announcement that they would veto a second term by Mr Boutros Ghali?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it hasn’t been discussed over the weekend and I certainly haven’t given it any further discussion myself. There is some way to go before we need to make decisions upon that. And traditionally, not just in this case, we have not indicated what our view is.

    QUESTION (David Smith, Sunday Times):

    On terrorism, you said earlier today that you had never ruled out the reintroduction of internment against the IRA. Can you envisage any circumstances in which you would rule it back in? And has the subject of BSE come up during your visit here, perhaps even in your meetings with the celebrated chefs?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I am delighted to tell you it didn’t come up in any of our meetings! It wasn’t mentioned, we have even got beyond the stage of jokes about beef, whomsoever’s beef it may be. So there was no mention whatsoever of BSE.

    I don’t want to elaborate on internment and I am sure you will understand that. We have always taken the position that that is there, we have never ruled it out as an option, but I certainly would be most unwise to contemplate in public any circumstances that might encourage us to rule it back in. And if you will forgive me, I won’t do so.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    You are throwing things forward in terms of terrorism to the Paris meeting of Security Ministers and Foreign Ministers, what specifics would you like to see come out of that Paris meeting? And when you talk about there being no hiding place for terrorists, do you find any problem with the easing of border controls in the European Union in this respect?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a whole series of things where we have been urging action for some time, for example, on the question of extradition. Extradition is not remotely as effective as it ought to be. We also need to consider, as we have managed to get into the communique, the possibility of extradition without a treaty. These are matters that need to be examined and we need to reach a final conclusion. There is also the question, a slightly different but related question, of some of the protections that are available under some UN conventions, there are certain conventions under the Refugee Convention. We strongly support the 1951 Refugee Convention, but there are some people who are using the activities of the 1951 Refugee Convention in order not to engage in terrorism but certainly to encourage it. And I think we want to discuss with our partners what they feel about areas like that. So that is but two illustrations. I could probably give you a great deal more, but those are the sort of practical issues that we hope are going to be discussed.

    We really want a much better coordination. We don’t want terrorists shifting from one capital to another because it is more convenient for them to stay there, and we don’t want them using a particular capital in order to launch an encouragement for terrorism in a quite different area. It is a problem we all face. We have seen terrorist activities in recent years in Japan, in the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland, in the United States, in the Middle East and many other places. And I have never known in the seven or eight years in total that I have been coming to summits on one capacity or another, I have never known such a unanimity of view amongst Heads of Government about the need for taking some collective action to deal with this problem. There is a much greater recognition of it and a much greater recognition of the need for collective action than I can ever recall at any stage in the past.

    QUESTION:

    On the European Union front, does this mean you would set your face still more firmly against any further erosion of border controls?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are very concerned about border controls. We certainly want to make sure that the external border is strong. There is a good deal of seepage on the external border and there has been a good deal of seepage on the external border for a long time. And of course there is also the question of UK border controls, about which we feel very strongly.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

    This is one summit when we have been unable to describe the British government team as beleaguered. Can I ask whether you think your political luck has turned, and also when you will be reshuffling your government?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You can certainly ask. I am sorry if we disappointed you by finding ourselves in agreement with colleagues, and finding colleagues in agreement with our initiatives. For some of them, the initiatives the Chancellor has been referring to, were very much British initiatives. So it was a very productive summit in every way. As far as change in the government is concerned, I think the first person to learn about whether or when there will be any of those will be the people concerned.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Lyon – 28 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Lyon, held on Friday 28th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what difference will yesterday’s statement on terrorism make?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is now a clear understanding of the extent of terrorism, the extent to which it is an international problem. Clearly we can’t find all the solutions we would wish in a couple of days meeting. What we have agreed to do is to study the matter more carefully, to call more structured meetings at which Security Ministers and Foreign Ministers would attend, so clearly at a very high level from each government, and then examine detailed measures so that we can coordinate more closely against what is an international menace.

    QUESTION:

    What are you expecting from today’s discussions on the global economy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are a number of things we will be looking at today. Certainly we will be looking at the third world, we will be looking at how the IMF and other bodies can help in developing countries, and also looking at some of the international problems there have been on regulation over recent years.

    QUESTION:

    Are you surprised at the apparent shift in policy by Mr Blair on devolution?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He does seem to have buckled, that certainly does seem to be the case as far as a referendum is concerned. He has said on many occasions there won’t be a referendum. Now, at the first whiff of grapeshot there is to be a referendum. Well I think this is probably the first of very many retreats on this particular policy. It hasn’t been properly thought out, they don’t know how it is going to operate, they haven’t answered any of the serious questions and I believe it is now going to come under very close scrutiny indeed. So I think it is becoming a central item on the domestic agenda.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with President Clinton – 27 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the US President, Bill Clinton, in Lyon on Thursday 27th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    President Clinton, what do you do if you discover that there was a state sponsorship behind the Saudi Arabia incident?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I will take whatever action I believe is appropriate, based on that the facts are. But let us wait until we see what the facts are.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, Mr Al-Masari has said that there was intellectually a very strong case for the bombers. What is your reaction to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen the context of what he said, but I can see no case, intellectual of any other sort of case, for the sort of activity in Dhahran. It is indefensible by any tenet.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think there are measures which you can agree here jointly with the other leaders to combat both the sort of terrorism you saw in Dhahran and also that we saw in Manchester from the IRA last week?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I do.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    So do I.

    QUESTION:

    What are they?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have some ideas to discuss. We have some British ideas, I understand there are some American ideas, we will discuss them bilaterally I am sure and we will discuss them with our colleagues. But I think we will probably unveil them after the discussions.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, do you want to talk about your ideas?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    No, I was just going to say that we have already agreed on a number of things that we will do together to deal with the problems of international crime that specifically bear on terrorism. And we may come up now with some other things that we can do together. I think all of us understand that terrorism is a problem from which no-one can hide and on which we must all cooperate. You have had terrorism in the United Kingdom, we have had terrorism in the United States and this awful attack in Dhahran, they had the problem on the Tokyo subway. This is the security challenge of the 21st century I am afraid and we have to get at them.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, are you concerned about the US idea to put sanctions on foreign companies that deal with Iran, and Libya and Cuba?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that is particularly a G7 subject. It is a matter I have no doubt will come up in discussion at some stage.