Category: 1996

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on Northern Ireland – 28 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on the situation in Northern Ireland, made on 28th February 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    With your permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the Anglo-Irish summit earlier today and its implications for the peace process in Northern Ireland.

    The Taoiseach and I met in Downing Street this afternoon and agreed a way forward set out in our communique, copies of which I hope by now will have been placed in the Library of the House. Let me summarise the main points of the approach.

    First, both Governments condemn unreservedly the IRA abandonment of the ceasefire and subsequent acts of terrorism, and call for the immediate and unequivocal restoration of that ceasefire.

    Secondly, we have confirmed that the two Governments will have no ministerial dialogue with Sinn Fein until the ceasefire is restored.

    Thirdly, we and the Irish Government will conduct further intense consultations with the parties between now and mid-March. After that, this Government will bring forward for consideration by this House appropriate legislation for the elective process and we will take other decisions necessary for the peace process to take place. As the communique makes clear, the Irish Government can support an elective process that is broadly acceptable.

    Fourthly, both Governments reaffirm their commitment to all-party negotiations with a comprehensive agenda. These will be convened on 10 June, following a broadly acceptable elective process. Whether those negotiations will include Sinn Fein will depend on whether the ceasefire has been restored. Fifthly, we have agreed that, at the beginning of the negotiations, in order to build confidence, all participants, including Sinn Fein if the ceasefire has been restored, will need to make clear their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Mitchell report, and to address also at the beginning of the negotiations Senator Mitchell’s proposals on decommissioning of weapons.

    I believe that these agreements and commitments represent a balanced approach, to which I hope all the parties in Northern Ireland will feel able to subscribe. No one will find in there all that he may have asked for; equally, no one need fear that his basic interests and requirements are being overlooked.

    The approach that the Taoiseach and I agreed marks out a clear route to all-party negotiations. We believe that this route is viable and direct. That is why we have set a firm date by which the negotiations will be launched. There is still the detail to be filled in, and some important issues to be settled. That is the purpose of the intensive consultations due to start next week and last until mid-March. But we now have the framework and a time scale to address and to decide these matters.

    We are ready to meet all the parties in whatever format best suits them, but I repeat that there can be no dialogue between Ministers and Sinn Fein until the ceasefire is unequivocally restored. That, I must tell the House, is the position of the Irish Government as well.

    The issues still to be settled include, first, the nature of the electoral system to be used in the elective process. There are strong views for and against different systems. Although the decision is for us, the British Government, we first intend to explore and test all the options in discussions with the parties before coming to our decision on what seems most broadly acceptable. The second issue is the nature and role of an elected body that will come out of the elections. Again, there are strongly held views, although many believe that such a body has a role to play as a forum for peace. The third issue is the format, structure and agenda of the negotiations themselves.

    We have been discussing these issues intensively with the Northern Ireland parties and with the Irish Government for some time. I should have liked to be in a position to announce agreement on these issues and to be able to publish detailed proposals today. There are, however, still gaps to be filled in.

    If I judge that it would be helpful, I may put forward to the parties, and perhaps publish, specific written proposals during the consultations. At the end of that period, the two Governments will review the outcome. Whether or not final agreement on all issues can be reached during that period, let me make it clear that, at the end of it, the Government will put forward to the House legislative proposals for elections in Northern Ireland. Decisions on the other outstanding arrangements will also be announced.

    These decisions will be taken on the basis of a judgement of what is most likely to be broadly acceptable to the parties and to the people of Northern Ireland. We have decided to act in this way to make it clear that the process cannot be held up further if, in the end, there is still a complete lack of agreement.

    We are taking these decisions upon ourselves–together, where appropriate, with the Irish Government–because we do not believe that the overwhelming desire of the people of Northern Ireland for lasting peace will brook further delay. We are ready to fulfil our responsibilities.

    There is one other aspect of the communique that I should bring to the attention of the House–the suggestion that there could be referendums in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic. These could be held on the same day as the proposed election in Northern Ireland. The aim would be to give the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to speak clearly about their own commitment to peaceful democratic methods and rejection of violence.

    The Government will consider further with the parties whether such a referendum would be valuable or not. There is clearly room for debate about what the question or questions should be in such a referendum, but we will listen to the views of the parties, and make our own views clear at the end of the consultation period.

    Meanwhile, let there be no doubt on three points. The first is that there is no place whatsoever for violence or the threat of violence in the peace process or in the negotiations themselves. Those who advocate violence, or who do not dissociate themselves clearly from its use or the threat of its use by others, cannot expect others to go on sitting at the negotiating table with them.

    Senator Mitchell’s report sets out clear principles on democracy and non-violence, makes clear the priority to be attached to the decommissioning of illegal weapons, and makes proposals on how that can be tackled. These issues, however difficult, cannot be dodged. They will be on the table at the beginning of negotiations. If it becomes clear that any party is not committed to these principles and this approach, either at the beginning of negotiations or subsequently, in our view there will be no place for them at the negotiating table.

    The second point is that there has never been any justification for terrorism or violence in Northern Ireland. These proposals and the firm commitment to all-party negotiations by a fixed date will remove any lingering thread of obfuscation and pretence about that.

    The third point is that the battle against terrorism is being intensified. Co-operation between the British and the Irish Governments has never been better than it is at the moment. We will hunt down those responsible for the bombings and killings, and maintain security at whatever level is necessary to protect the citizens of this country as they go about their daily business. The people of this country and of the Irish Republic have made clearer than ever before their demand for an end to violence. That demand must now be met, and the people have the right to expect the violence to stop for good.

    The search for peace has been much complicated by the resumption of terrorism on 9 February; but the Government said that we would not be deflected from our efforts, and we have not been. I am grateful for the support for our efforts that we have received from all parts of the House and across all parties. We and the Irish Government are united in our determination to stamp out terrorism and to bring a lasting peace. With the support of this House, I believe that we will succeed. But I must warn the House that the road ahead may yet be long and stony. The men of violence will not give up lightly. Among them are people who do not truly want peace as we in this House understand it.

    As we go through the process leading to the negotiations, and as we take the difficult decisions that lie ahead, concerns will be raised from this or that side, and this or that interest. We will take account of all views, but we will not be deflected from our central objective, because the men, women and children of Great Britain and Northern Ireland demand no less of us. Their lives and their futures must be our first concern. I commend to the House this approach to negotiations and, ultimately, to a lasting and comprehensive peace.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 27 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th February 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Departmental Officials (Interest)

    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the officials in his Department who have declared a current interest; what requirement are placed on officials to declare relevant interests; in what form records of such declarations are kept; and if he will establish a central register of officials’ interests.

    The Prime Minister: For these purposes my office forms part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

     

    Ministerial Accountability

    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to paragraph K8.1 of the Scott report relating to ministerial accountability, what additional measures he proposes to ensure his Department’s compliance with paragraph 27 of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 26 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February 1996, Official Report, columns 589-604.

     

    EDS Ltd.

    Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those contracts his Department currently holds with EDS Ltd., indicating for each the (a) date of inception, (b) value and (c) duration.

    The Prime Minister: For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

     

    Cabinet Working Group on Iraqi Procurement

    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all members of the Cabinet working group on Iraqi procurement between 25 May 1989 and 25 February 1990.

    The Prime Minister: The members of the working group on Iraqi procurement were officials drawn from the Departments concerned. It is not the practice to publish the membership of official committees.

     

    Ministerial Duties

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that conventions regulating ministerial duties are codified by legislation.

    The Prime Minister: No. I believe that ministerial duties to Parliament should be supervised by Parliament.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February.

    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.

     

    Live Animal Exports

    Sir Terence Higgins: To ask the Prime Minister if the speech by the Secretary of State for Agriculture to the annual general meeting of the Devon members of the National Farmers’ Union on the export of live animals represents Government policy.

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister set out his views on the export of live animals very clearly in his speech on 15 January. They are consistent with the views expressed in the House on previous occasions.

     

    2001 Census

    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister how many representations his office received (a) in favour of and (b) against the setting up of a census office for Wales (i) in respect of the 1991 census and (ii) in respect of the 2001 census; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: So far as I am aware, none. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 23 January 1996, Official Report, column 141.

    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to ensure that the format of the 2001 census forms conform with the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993; if he will make it his policy to consult the Welsh Language Board in preparing census forms; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The content and format of the 2001 census form are not yet decided. However, the Registrar General will ensure that the forms conform with the Welsh Language Act 1993, consulting other bodies as required.

    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to include in the 2001 census a question to discover how many people throughout the United Kingdom can understand, read and write the Welsh language.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 23 January 1996, Official Report, column 141.

     

    Hong Kong

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet David Tang, Jimmy Lai, Morris Nourari, Stanley Ho and Li Kash Ing during his forthcoming visit to Hong Kong.

    The Prime Minister: I naturally hope to meet a broad range of business men, politicians and other opinion formers.

  • PMQT – 27 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th February 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February.

    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 meetings in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Ms Eagle: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House whether he knew of the £6.2 million rescue package put together by ex-Tory Cabinet Minister Lord Younger last October to save the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) from being disqualified as a Member of Parliament? Did the Prime Minister approve of the deal?

    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman–[Interruption.] I have to say to the hon. Lady–forgive me for that slip–that that is not a matter for me, and it was not a matter of which I was aware.

    Mr. Pickles: In his busy schedule, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the book by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)? What lessons does he draw from it for his own Government–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question about lessons to be drawn by the Government and hon. Members should listen.

    Mr. Pickles: May I draw to my right hon. Friend’s attention the suggestion in the book that, under a Labour Government, each newly married couple would receive £5,000? Is he aware that the last time that that proposal was seriously made was in Germany under the Third Reich? Does he agree that, in seeking a role model for his own leader, the hon. Gentleman has bypassed domestic role models and seeks the concept of “Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuhrer”?

    The Prime Minister: I have not read the book, but it clearly sounds an extremely good buy, even if I have to purchase it myself. I am not sure that the book will do a good deal of good for the hon. Gentleman who wrote it. If he has the influence on Labour party policy that many of us believe, I hope that everybody will take the opportunity of reading the book.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister knows that we have supported the Government wholeheartedly in the peace process and will continue to do so. In view of the damaging speculation, will he clarify whether any deal was offered to the Government last night, as has been suggested?

    The Prime Minister: I made it clear last night–and I have made it clear on earlier occasions–that I have no intention of doing any deal with any party on any occasion if the price of that deal is any given action by the Government in relation to the Northern Ireland peace process. I appreciate the support that I have had, across the House, on that process. To many Members of the House, the process has been seen as being above politics in many ways, which I believe is right. I am not in the market for deals now or in the future, and I think that every hon. Member is aware of that.

    Mr. Blair: I am grateful for that reply. I hope that the Prime Minister will, therefore, deplore any briefing that was given last night about deals being offered to the Government. Does he agree that the issue of Northern Ireland and other issues of intense party controversy are best kept entirely separate in future?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree that those matters are separate and, as I said a moment ago, there are no deals and there will be no deals, and I think everyone is aware of that.

    Mr. Skinner: The DUP?

    The Prime Minister: There is no deal with any political party in the House–not with the Democratic Unionist party, not with the Ulster Unionists, not with the Social Democratic and Labour party. No deal–not now, not yesterday, not tomorrow, not at all–on this process.

    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend continue to give priority to increasing the number of police officers available for beat duty, especially in rural areas? Does he agree that those officers should be full time, that the fight against crime requires total dedication and commitment from our police and that part-time officers are no substitute?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the tremendous reassurance that is given to people by seeing police officers on the beat. He will be aware that we have provided funding in this year’s public expenditure round that gives chief constables the resources to put a further 5,000 police officers on the beat.

    Having said that, I also believe that those who serve part time in the police force do a very good service for their community, as do special constables. My hon. Friend is entirely right, however, that the public feel deeply reassured by seeing more full-time, fully trained police officers on the beat. That is what we want; we have provided resources to obtain it.

    Mr. Ashdown: On GMTV on Sunday, the Defence Secretary said that he believed that a European single currency in Europe is very likely. Does the Prime Minister agree?

    The Prime Minister: May I, first, in a spirit of cross-party good will, wish the right hon. Gentleman a happy birthday? I cannot promise that this good will will always last.

    I think that many countries in Europe believe that a single currency would be good for Europe and that it will take place: it may, at some stage in the future. I believe that the time scales currently set out cannot safely be met.

    Mr. Jacques Arnold: When my right hon. Friend goes to the intergovernmental conference, will he ask his Spanish counterpart how he explains to the young people of Spain, one third of whom are unemployed, why their jobs should be sacrificed on the altar of the social chapter?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend directs that question especially at my Spanish colleague, but it might equally be directed at several of my colleagues elsewhere in Europe. Throughout Europe, countries that have signed the social chapter and that have many social provisions that would be included in the social chapter, were this country foolish enough to sign it, have higher unemployment, including youth unemployment, than we have in this country–and, in many cases, far higher unemployment. That is why we believe that it would be quite wrong, in the interests not only of competitiveness but of having people in work, especially young people, to sign it. We will not, and it is one of the dividing lines between the policy of the Government and that of the principal Opposition parties.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February.

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

    Mr. Michie: Does the Prime Minister think it is right that last night’s vote on the conduct of two Ministers was won only because the two Ministers concerned decided to vote to exonerate themselves?

    The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman has always taken a great interest in matters relating to Iraq. He demanded an immediate ceasefire and peace conference before Saddam Hussein had been defeated in the war, so he takes a great interest in this matter.

    If the Government had been defeated by one or two votes last night, the hon. Gentleman would have said, “Everything is proved; all must change.” Unfortunately for him, the House did not vote to defeat the Government last night. If he reads the debate that took place in the House of Lords–where perhaps a more dispassionate view was taken on many issues–he will see that five Law Lords said unequivocally that they agreed with the legal advice given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

    On that basis, I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) withdraw the remarks that he has made repeatedly in the past three years. Until he does so, the Government will not be able to take seriously a single word that he utters.

    Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing a White Paper giving the history of defence equipment sales over the past 30 years or so? Is it not correct that the first super salesman at the Ministry of Defence was Mr. Ray Brown, who was appointed by Lord Healey? Did not Lord Callaghan, as Prime Minister, introduce the Chevaline missile without telling half of his Cabinet or the House? He would certainly never have told the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who were members of CND.

    The Prime Minister: It is just possible that the reason why he would not tell them was given by my right hon. Friend at the end of his remarks. What happened under previous Governments is a matter of record. It is also a matter of record that this Government sold no hard armaments to Iraq and that the previous Labour Government provided many to Argentina. That is a matter of record, not speculation.

     

    Q3. Ms Roseanna Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February.

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

    Ms Cunningham: I wonder whether the Prime Minister noticed the demonstration that took place in Edinburgh on Saturday against swingeing Government education cuts. Some 40,000 people–parents, teachers and children–marched in protest against those cuts. That is the equivalent of about 500,000 people marching on the streets of London. Is the Prime Minister aware that his Minister at the Scottish Office said that he would have joined the demonstration if he had been in Edinburgh? If the Prime Minister had been in Scotland at the weekend, would he have joined the demonstration also–bearing it in mind that the slashing of local government budgets means that he would not be guaranteed police protection?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady knows that more resources are made available year after year for education in all parts of the United Kingdom. She knows also that the proportion of public expenditure per head of population throughout Scotland is far higher than that throughout the whole of England and Wales. It is only smaller than that in Northern Ireland, where very special circumstances prevail. Of course, the hon. Lady is also in favour of an extra tax in order to provide more money and an extra imposition of £6 per week for every family in Scotland as a result of policies that she supports.

     

    Q4. Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February.

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

    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ending of the IRA ceasefire makes it even more important that the prevention of terrorism Act be renewed? Does he agree that that measure should be supported by all parties in the House and that to abstain, rather than to vote against it–which now appears to be the policy of the Labour party–is not sufficient and will do nothing to help in the war against terrorism?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the Labour party for the bipartisan approach that it has adopted: I repeat that point yet again. I was very pleased to hear from the shadow Home Secretary that the Opposition do not intend to oppose the Bill. I hope that, on reflection, they will be prepared to go a little further and support us on that Bill. It would be helpful were the Opposition to do so, but that is a matter that they must consider. I can say only that, on that Bill, I would especially welcome their support in the Lobby.

     

    Q5. Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 February.

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

    Dr. Wright: After yesterday’s events, what advice would the Prime Minister give to a civil servant who is asked by a Minister consistently, deliberately and designedly to mislead the House of Commons?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the case and that there is a code of conduct for civil servants, which they follow. That has been, is and will continue to be the case.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Q6. Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited the Ruislip-Northwood parliamentary constituency.

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

    Mr. Wilkinson: May I assume from that reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is referring to his last visit to Royal Air Force Northolt in my constituency?

    On that occasion, he may have climbed out to the south-west over pleasant, open countryside and green belt. Will he ensure that his Government stick to the excellent sentiments expressed by him and the leaders of the Labour and Liberal parties in their letter to The Times on 9 February, in which they called for the preservation of the countryside?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we have recently produced a White Paper on rural affairs as well and our concern for the countryside has not lately arrived, but has been a party concern for many years. That remains the case.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 26 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 26th February 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the consistency between his statement in The Sun on 17 February as to United Kingdom arms exports to Iraq with the details of export licences provided on pages 21, 33, 34 and 77 of the appendix A of volume V of the Scott report.

    The Prime Minister: Appendix A of volume V of the Scott report confirms that the UK did not on any occasion approve the export of lethal defence equipment to Iraq. This is the point that I was making in my article in The Sun on 17 February.

    Mr. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what guidelines he has issued to Departments in respect of the retention of papers dealing with export licences since the Scott inquiry commenced.

    The Prime Minister: No specific guidance has been issued on the retention of papers dealing with export licences. Central guidance on the retention of Government papers generally is issued by the Public Records Office. More detailed criteria are applied by each Government Department to meet its own needs.

    Mr. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the briefing note prepared for him in support of his oral answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) of 12 November 1992, Official Report, column 990.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 February 1996]: This document was submitted as evidence to Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry. Sir Richard Scott is free to publish any document which he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. I understand that he proposes to do this as soon as possible. Documents which Sir Richard does not consider relevant to his report and which contain internal discussion and advice will not be made available.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will now place in the Library a copy of the chronology of United Kingdom trade with Iraq, prepared for his Office by the Cabinet Office in November 1992.

    The Prime Minister: This document was submitted as evidence to Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry. Sir Richard Scott is free to publish any document which he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. I understand that he proposes to do this as soon as possible.

     

    Ministers’ (Resignations)

    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Prime Minister how many Ministers have resigned in each year since 1979.

    The Prime Minister: This is a matter of public record.

     

    Ministers (Broadcasting)

    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make arrangements for the transcripts of all television and radio broadcasts made by Ministers of the Crown to be deposited in the Library.

    The Prime Minister: This is a matter for departmental Ministers. The cost of making it a universal practice would be very substantial.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 23 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in London on Friday 23rd February 1996.


    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what is your reaction this morning to Mr Thurnham’s resignation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I am surprised, to be honest. I had a lengthy conversation with Peter and Sarah last evening and we had a very friendly conversation, a very amiable conversation and we were going to meet again next week. So I am a little surprised, I don’t quite know what happened after I finished my meeting with him.

    QUESTION:

    What will this mean for the debate on Monday on Scott?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know that it makes any difference to the debate at all on Monday, I wasn’t sure what Peter was going to do, I don’t know what Peter is going to do now, but I expect that we will win the vote on Monday.

    QUESTION:

    Are you confident that you can win that vote?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I think we will win the vote on Monday.

    QUESTION:

    And will you ensure that there is indeed a division on that subject?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not for me to ensure there is a division, I think the Opposition will probably ensure there is a division and I think we can rely upon them to do that. There is a capability for division. If the Opposition are entirely satisfied and don’t wish to divide, that is a matter for them.

    QUESTION:

    Is there a danger now, as Sir Teddy Taylor was saying this morning, of an election before the end of the year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe so. I have always expected to go through to the spring of 1997 and I still expect to go through to the spring of 1997.

    QUESTION:

    This has been described as a betrayal by his own Constituency Association people, do you feel betrayed by what he has done?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Peter will have worked very closely with his constituency and his constituency will have worked very closely with him and very hard for him over the years, so I can understand that people feel very worried about this. I don’t think that is the sort of language that I am in the business of using. Peter has been a parliamentary colleague for a very long time. I am very saddened and disappointed at his decision. I am not quite sure what temporarily resigning the Whip means, but I am sure Peter will be in touch to say what it means.

    QUESTION:

    Is your door still open to him to come back?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My door is open to every Member of Parliament almost all the time, I spend a lot of time talking to Members of Parliament.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Are you concerned about further defections?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not expecting any.

    QUESTION:

    What would you say to any Tories who may be considering doing something similar?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there are any, so I don’t think the situation arises.

    QUESTION:

    On Ireland, you will be seeing George Mitchell today, we understand you have had a number of meetings in the last 24 hours, are you hoping that the peace process in a meaningful way can be put back together in the next few days, with a summit perhaps?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have said repeatedly that I am not prepared to give up on the process, neither is John Bruton. We had a further conversation this morning. As you say, I will be seeing George Mitchell later on today, that is not to negotiate, it is to discuss what has happened and to update him on our thinking. And then I expect to be speaking to the Taoiseach again over the weekend. We are working towards a summit, we are not going to call a summit until we have done some further work. There is a huge amount of discussion and negotiation going on at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think you will meet him before you go to Bangkok?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It would be my hope to meet him before we go to Bangkok, I can’t be certain that that will be the case but that would be my wish if it is achievable.

    QUESTION:

    Sinn Fein were saying last night that the package that appears to be being put together, they were interested in and certainly wanted to look at. Do you feel that there is any realistic prospect at this stage that they can be brought back in, from what you are hearing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    From what we have heard from Sinn Fein in the past, there ought never to have been a breach of the ceasefire. So I am a little sceptical about what I hear Sinn Fein saying, I think it is actions from now on we will wish to see from Sinn Fein and the IRA. I think we would be cautious about any words, we have been in the past, we now have every reason to be more cautious. It is actions we will wish to see from them. But we will continue and I hope we will be able to have a summit before the European Union/Asia Conference in Bangkok. I cannot be certain about that yet, and neither can John Bruton be certain about that. If we can achieve it, we will.

    QUESTION:

    What would Sinn Fein have to do, in your view, to get back into the process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    These are matters that will become apparent over the next few days. Let us finish the discussions we are having and then we will make it quite clear.

  • Mr Major’s Questions and Answers at the WEU Assembly – 23 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s questions and answers session following his speech to the Western European Union (WEU) Assembly, held in London on Friday 23rd February 1996.


    QUESTION (Mr Naulius, Estonia):

    Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for sharing with us your vision about European security in future and also for your support for enlargement of the European Union and spreading stability and prosperity to the East. However, for smaller associate partners like the Baltic States their own future is of primary concern and therefore I would ask what is the United Kingdom’s position on NATO and western European enlargement concerning the Baltic States or how do you it is possible to increase security in the area of the Baltic States and the whole Baltic Sea area in this context?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are many aspects to that question. Let me try and take as many of them as I credibly can.

    As far as NATO enlargement is concerned, I am in favour of NATO enlargement. I think we have to take it at a practical level. I re-emphasise the point I made a few moments ago: enlargement of NATO is not a one-way option; enlargement of NATO is an obligation for NATO to the new country and it is an obligation for the new country when it joins NATO, so there is a twin obligation there so I think we will take NATO enlargement steadily but securely. The order in which NATO will enlarge I think is a matter yet to be determined, I don’t think there can be any immediate progress over the next few months but I hope towards the end of this year we can begin to look seriously, after we have examined the practicalities of enlargement which are enormous, at what sort of order the enlargement will come in and I think we can say no more about that on this occasion.

    As far as the western European Union is concerned, we have of course, including the Baltic States, an associate partnership position at present. What is the best way to develop that?

    The associate partner status is unique in the Western European Union and the purpose of it is to give the Central Europeans and indeed the Baltic States a direct involvement in the work of the organisation. I think we can make a good deal more of that than we have thus far.

    What we are looking to explore is ways of involving the associate partners more directly in the operational work of WEU. We have work such as mine-clearing, work in Bosnia. I think absorbing increasingly the associate partners into that element of work is the first step. Beyond that, I think it is for the Western European Union to look at the question of further enlargement and I for one would wish to put no impediment in front of that but the first option I think is to increase the absorption of the associate partners not just in conferences and assemblies but in the practical work, including the military work that we hope increasingly is going to be done by the Western European Union.

    QUESTION (Mr Van der Linden, The Netherlands):

    I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that in order to conduct an irreversible process in Europe as was referred to by Federal Chancellor Kohl, we must have a European common defence policy which in the long term must ultimately be part and parcel of the European Union. We cannot have a European political union without defence being a part of that union. May I ask the Prime Minister for his reaction?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I gave my reaction a few moments ago to that. The British are a very large part of the European defence component in NATO and in the Western European Union. I have to say to colleagues here present that when British troops are on active service I cannot conceive that they would be subordinated to anything other than the British Cabinet in the United Kingdom. I don’t see that there is a circumstance that I can foresee in which the determination and decision-making about British troops in action is going to be available to the European Union or the European Parliament, I cannot foresee that being accepted by this British Government or any other conceivable British Government. I don’t know what time-scale other people have their ambitions in, I tend to deal in practical slabs of time and I cannot foresee at any stage in the future as I see it that we are likely to reach a position in which British troops would have their effective decisions taken for them by the European Union rather than by the British Government, I do not believe that would be acceptable to the British Parliament, it would not be acceptable to me, I cannot believe it would be acceptable to any other British Government and I do not believe it will happen.

    QUESTION (Mr Jack Thompson, United Kingdom)

    Prime Minister, first of all may I make a remark about your comments earlier about the role of the WEU and say that as far as I am aware, the British Parliament, not only the British Government, supports your view on the role of the WEU so there is unanimity in the British Parliament.

    Bearing in mind that in the United States we are running up to presidential elections, there is a Congress which tends to be rather isolationist these days and the situation in the former Yugoslavia is moving into a time I understand when at the end of this year the Americans are saying they are going to pull out of there. As Britain has the chairmanship of the Council of the Western European Union, what role do you think the WEU can play in terms of former Yugoslavia post the Americans leaving, if they do?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first part of your comments, Jack, let me thank you for what you had to say. I think it is always good for all our colleagues in Europe and elsewhere to see on very vital issues there is often cross-party agreement in the House of Commons and I am grateful to you for endorsing the fact that as far as the Western European Union is concerned that is one of those occasions. I think it is useful that our colleagues realise that that is the position on such a fundamentally important issue.

    As far as the Implementation Force in Yugoslavia is concerned, it is the general expectation that the force collectively would be able to leave by the end of the year. I don’t think the concept of the Americans leaving unilaterally is one that is acceptable to the other European partners and I think the Americans would understand that when the time came. We hope that we will be able to have had the work done by the end of the year; I very much hope that that is the case. If the work isn’t done, then we will have to examine what needs to be done to ensure that the work can be done but I do not foresee it being a position that the Americans would unilaterally leave; that is not the basis upon which other troops from Europe are presently serving in the former Yugoslavia either from the United Kingdom or from other countries so I hope the circumstance will not arise.

    QUESTION (Mr Parisi, Italy):

    At a summit held on 6 December 1995, a joint declaration was issued on the WEU within the context of European security at the end of the Italian presidency and the beginning of the British one. What progress has been made in order to apply this joint declaration and has the Ministerial Council of the WEU approved a document referring to WEU’s contribution to the IGC where there are at least three alternative options? Minister of Defence, Mr. Portillo, last December at a WEU meeting said that the British Government considered the debate on this matter as closed within the WEU as this has become within the frame of competence of the IGC. Does the Government then consider that it is easier to arrive at a compromise in future between the 15 members of the European Union rather than the 10 of the WEU?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The last part of your question sounded as though it was coming from a blizzard somewhere on the other side of Venus so I am not entirely sure what the last part of your question was but let me deal with the general points.

    For some time, Britain has had extremely good defence cooperation with Italy. You mentioned a particular declaration in Florence, I can think of other occasions over the last few years where we have agreed bilaterally with Italy certain matters on the question of defence. As far as how those are developing, we are seeking to develop them as rapidly as possible. There are a whole series of elements in the agreement that was announced to which you refer some time ago, some are now in the process of being implemented, some are not, there is still some way further to go.

    As far as the last part of your question is concerned, with your President’s permission, if you would like to repeat the last part I will try and answer it. It was quite impossible to hear on the translation.

    QUESTION:

    Thank you, Prime Minister. I was referring to the fact that the British Defence Minister, Mr Portillo, last December at the WEU Assembly said that the British government considers that the debate on constitutional matters is close within the WEU whilst the matter will be referred to the IGC. Do you think that the British government is tending towards a compromise which is easier to deal with the 15 European Union countries or is it easier to do this within the 10 member countries of the WEU?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I think the point that Michael Portillo was seeking to make is a reflection of what I was saying a few moments ago, that we do not wish to see the Western European Union subordinated to the European Union in its decision-making capability. Of course the WEU must work very closely with our European Union partners, we agree with that. But the point that Michael was seeking to make was that we don’t want institutional changes that subordinate the decision-making process of the Western European Union to the European Union with obvious future knock-on implications for the Western European Union Assembly and its relations with the European Parliament. That would have been the point that Michael Portillo was seeking to make. We do not favour unhappy changes to the Western European Union.

    QUESTION (Leader of French Delegation to Assembly):

    The Brussels Commission has made proposals with regard to establishing a Common Market for armaments. Is it the best body to do that and is the British government prepared to participate, given the concentration of the American output in armaments?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When it comes to European armaments, the UK defence industry of course is a very major player, amongst the most important in Europe. So we are well attuned already to the benefits of collaboration with our European partners. And we see obvious benefits in extending this cooperation in the form of the European armaments agency, self-evidently that is the case. So we would certainly support continuing work in the Western European armaments group towards that particular end. What we do not see, of course is the European armaments agency simply existing as a body to prevent armaments purchases from elsewhere. There are occasions where a particular weapon is particularly suitable for a particular need, and if it comes from the United States we would buy it from the United States, if it comes from Europe we would buy it from Europe. But that there are undoubted advantages in cooperation and coordination of what our weapons actually fire – it is ridiculous that some of our guns in Western Europe fire different sorts of bullets, that our mortars are different, that our gun barrel sizes are different on heavy weapons, a whole series of things where there is a great deal of coordination that could and should take place. We are very much in favour of that and we see great advantage in the European armaments agency, but not as a protectionist model.

    QUESTION (Mr Pavlidos, Greece):

    First of all, I would like to congratulate you for the speech you have made to us this morning. And I think you have led us to believe even more strongly that the Western European Union can play an important role in developing security matters in Europe. However, very recently we have seen on two occasions that whenever a crisis breaks out, for example in former Yugoslavia, and just a few days ago in the Aegean, and I am referring to the now famous islet of Imia, and of course I am talking about an area which has very close historic links with your country, I am talking about the area of the Dodecanese and the period of British administration between 1945 and 1947, before you handed those islands, including Imia, over to Greece. And in this crisis we have seen again that Europe did not intervene. I would be interested to hear your views on the subject. How do you see European organisations intervening in such incidents and such cases when there is a threat to Europe’s borders, and I would be grateful if you could state for us what role you think your country could play in such incidents?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The two incidents you mentioned, of course, are of a different dimension. But I understand what impels you to link them. On former Yugoslavia, Europe as a whole has had a good deal of media criticism for the way it reacted. Some of that criticism is justified, I have to say a good deal of it is not justified. If the Europeans had not acted as they did, one forgets the beginning of the dispute in former Yugoslavia, I remember very plainly the nightmare we had at the beginning of the former Yugoslavia, the nightmare we had was that the dispute would move southwards to Kosovo and beyond and that we would drag in the areas beyond and that we would have a full scale Balkan war. That was the fear at the beginning and I think some of the European nations, and since you ask for the role of Britain, I think from memory we were the first actually to send troops there to try and damp down the difficulties and prevent the danger that then existed of the dispute moving to the south and beginning to involve other nations. So we did act very speedily. I recall coming back from my European holiday as it happens, I think I was in Portugal, in order to make the decision to send British troops there, and as I say I think that was the first. So that was the role we took because we saw the danger.

    I think Europe has learned a lot about cooperation as a result of what actually happened in former Yugoslavia. The only point of difference that I have with some of my European colleagues is that I believe we have to do these things by a better mechanism for cooperation, rather than by centralising a decision-making process within the European Union. That we should cooperate, I am very much in support of. That we should have a common foreign and security policy, I very much agree. What I do not agree is that that common foreign and security policy should be centrally determined against the wishes of major players. They cannot ask any European troops, against the wishes of their sovereign government, to do something and in practice I don’t think it would work. So we have to build on the common foreign and security policy and improve it. And in many of the European matters I think the mechanism of the Western European Union is also an appropriate mechanism to use. That is precisely why we want to improve its operational capability during the period of the British Presidency and immediately afterwards. We think the Western European Union can become a much more effective European arm of NATO than it is at present and we ate keen to give it the assistance that it needs to ensure that it can do so.

    As far as the second incident that you mentioned, the now famous Isle of Imia, I think it was more a matter for diplomatic intervention than military intervention and certainly that is an area where there is a European Union member involved where I think diplomacy can play a considerable role. And we will have some proposals to make at the Intergovernmental Conference as to how that might be improved. Our position will be to make some positive proposals in that respect and to try and persuade our European partners that we can improve the cooperation of European common and foreign policy by agreement.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the WEU Assembly – 23 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Western European Union (WEU) Assembly, held in London on Friday 23rd February 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Ambassadors, Ladies and Gentlemen;

    It is rare for a British Prime Minister to address a fellow British politician as Mr President. So I offer my congratulations to my friend and parliamentary colleague, Sir Dudley Smith.

    It is equally rare for a Prime Minister – of any nationality – to welcome such a distinguished body of Parliamentarians to his country. So I am delighted to welcome the WEU Assembly to London today.

    The United Kingdom currently holds the Presidency of the Western European Union. But our associations with the WEU go back a long way.

    Britain was a founding member.

    – London played host to the organisation for nearly forty years.

    – And Britain helped to reactivate the WEU in the mid 1980s.

    The UK’s commitment to the WEU reflects a deeper impulse too. It stems from our basic commitment to security and stability – in Europe, and beyond.

    No country can build its security alone. As Winston Churchill said at one very difficult moment in Anglo-American relations during the Second World War: “there is only one thing worse than fighting with Allies: and that is fighting without them.”

    By any measure, Britain more than pulls its weight.

    We have – like our Allies – restructured our armed forces following the end of the Cold War. We’ve done so in response to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the scrapping of the Warsaw Pact, the implementation of the CFE Treaty, the implosion of the former Soviet Union and the consequent reduction and reform in Russia’s armed forces, and the building of new, cooperative arrangements between states that were former adversaries.

    Throughout these changes we have continued to plan for an uncertain world, so that our new front-line matches up to the new challenges. Our emphasis has been on mobility, flexibility and rapid reaction. All attributes needed now more than ever. I suspect you will find that much the same thinking lies behind the important proposals for the reform of the French armed forces which President Chirac announced last night.

    Meanwhile, we have taken an axe to unnecessary overheads and bureaucracy, eliminating those tasks that did not need to be done, and ensuring that those essential tasks that remained could be done in the most efficient way. By 1998/9 this will be saving us over £1 billion a year. Nonetheless, we remain one of the highest spenders on defence in Europe, in both absolute and per capita terms.

    What is more, we have concentrated these resources where they matter – on the front line. At the teeth. Let me give you an illustration. We have for instance been able to acquire an entirely new capability – Tomahawk missiles for our submarines.

    At the same time, we have placed an increasing emphasis on “Joint” activity, with the closest inter-action and cooperation between the three Services. They train as they will fight together.

    There is a perception that reductions in the defence budget since the end of the Cold War must mean a reduction too in the capabilities of our armed forces. That is not true. Our armed forces have never been better equipped than they are today. To give you just on example, the Royal Navy’s latest frigate, the Type 23, has a crew almost 30 per cent smaller than its equivalent in the 1970s. But its radar and other sensors, helicopter and missiles all have ranges and capabilities several times their predecessors.

    In short, we have:

    – adapted our force structure to the new international security environment, and increased our operational efficiency by concentrating on mobility, flexibility and rapid reaction;

    – concentrated resources where they matter: on the front line, at the sharp end;

    – improved inter-service operability.

    Britain’s armed forces have brought their qualities to bear repeatedly in support of peace and freedom around the world: repelling Argentine aggression in the Falklands: helping to restore sovereignty to Kuwait: keeping the peace in Cyprus and Mozambique: today working to secure a new peace in Bosnia.

    A snapshot taken last year would have shown Britain as the largest single contributor to United Nations peacekeeping operations around the world.

    Our contribution to the Implementation Force in Bosnia involves some 13,000 personnel – a much greater effort, in terms of population, GDP or as a fraction of our armed forces, than any other nation has been able to make. To put that in perspective, more than 10 per cent of our land army is now serving in Bosnia.

    It is because we take our own responsibilities seriously that Britain cares so much about the future of the security institutions we belong to. So we are honoured to hold the Presidency of the WEU for the first half of this year. And I am glad that you have chosen to devote this meeting to the treatment of defence issues at the Inter-Governmental Conference.

    I have one simple objective for Britain’s Presidency of the WEU and for the IGC: defence and security arrangements for Europe that work:

    – that are credible and practical;

    – that our citizens can rely on.

    The hard test is whether we can put in place arrangements capable of responding, not just to a desire for bureaucratic or institutional tidiness, but to the real security challenges that we shall face in the years ahead.

    An American President once said that “the purpose of foreign policy is not to provide an outlet for our own sentiments of hope or indignation, it is to shape real events in a real world.”

    The same is true in defence. Institutional blueprints may look pretty on paper but, as any soldier will tell you, they don’t offer much protection when the shells start flying.

    So what are the challenges? I see three key tasks.

    First, maintaining effective military forces.

    The end of the Cold War does not mean that we no longer need to be ready to defend ourselves and to keep the Atlantic community together. For Britain, collective defence through NATO remains the best way of doing both.

    Second, creating a Europe whole and free.

    That means extending to the East the stability and prosperity that we have for so long taken for granted in western Europe, whilst guarding against the appearance of new divisions.

    Third, promoting security elsewhere in the region and the world.

    History, culture and trade bind Europe to virtually all parts of the globe: from the Mediterranean to the Far East, from Africa to Latin America.

    These three key tasks are a formidable agenda. What are the instruments we need? First and foremost, NATO.

    NATO and the American presence in Europe remain the bedrock of our common security. We must keep the Alliance strong, both for collective defence and for new operations, such as IFOR, where we need US troops beside us on the ground. We draw new strength from France’s decision to participate more fully in NATO, a decision which I welcome most warmly.

    The Alliance also has a major role to play in extending stability to the East. The Partnership for Peace launched in January 1994 is central to this. Military cooperation under PfP is beginning to reduce the misunderstandings that breed insecurity.

    – It is bringing former adversaries together in joint operations.

    – 14 out of the 27 PfP countries have contributed personnel to IFOR. As Javier Solana said in Munich this month, the operation could be described as the most ambitious PfP exercise ever conceived.

    NATO has agreed that, for some countries, participation in PfP will lead ultimately to membership of the Alliance. That is a commitment. But while we move steadily towards decisions on the “who and when” of enlargement, we should remember too that enlargement is not a panacea. Enlargement will not cover all countries or meet all security needs.

    Every new country joining NATO means a huge new commitment on their part, and on the part of NATO. It is a military alliance, not a debating society.

    It will certainly not be a free lunch.

    So the process needs to be handled soberly and transparently, as one powerful tool among others for building the larger and safer Europe that we seek.

    We need to reinforce Europe’s contribution to the Atlantic Alliance. More effective European participation can only strengthen NATO as a whole. We should consider IFOR as a model for the future: almost two thirds of the Implementation Force’s troops are European.

    But sometimes Europe can shoulder the burden more directly, by mounting smaller-scale operations ourselves. NATO Heads of Government paved the way for this as long ago as January 1994, when they agreed the Combined Joint Task Force concept. We need now to put in place machinery for the political control and planning of such operations.

    The WEU is uniquely well qualified to fill this role. Its working links with NATO mean it can draw on the full range of European capabilities, as well as Alliance command structures.

    Its close relations with the EU allow us to coordinate the military, political and economic elements of any European response to a crisis.

    But its decisions on military action will be taken, as they must be, on the purely intergovernmental basis laid down in the Modified Brussels Treaty.

    The WEU has gained useful experience in its operations so far: from mine-sweeping in the Gulf, to sanctions enforcement around the former Yugoslavia. But more work is needed before it can take on more significant tasks.

    The British Presidency’s objective is for the WEU to become fully operationally capable as soon as possible. At Petersberg in Germany in 1992, Ministers agreed that the WEU should prepare to undertake peacekeeping, humanitarian and crisis management tasks. Our objective is that, by the end of the year, the WEU should be ready to perform a good number of these.

    During the British Presidency, I hope the WEU will also develop its own contribution to the extension of stability eastwards. We need to build a better dialogue with the WEU’s Associate Partners in Central Europe. And we need to give substance to the WEU’s relations with Russia and Ukraine.

    Our security does not always come from the barrel of a gun. Alongside the WEU, the EU has its own formidable armoury of political and economic instruments with which to build security and reunite our continent.

    The EU’s Association Agreements with the countries of Central Europe, and its Partnership and Cooperation Agreements with countries further East, are an important force for security and prosperity.

    We must make the most of them:

    – I believe we should open negotiations for EU membership with at least some of the Central European countries as soon as possible after the Inter-Governmental Conference;

    – And we must keep the EU’s trading rules open and non-protectionist, so that we give all the countries of this region the trading opportunities they need to build strong economies;

    – And we must work together to build a common agenda for security in Europe and beyond.

    Europe must look South as well as East. We must build on last November’s conference at Barcelona to promote stability across the Mediterranean. And we must look to our interests further afield. The meeting between Heads of Government from Asia and the EU next week is an important first, and an excellent opportunity to increase cooperation between two of the world’s most dynamic regions.

    So what does all this mean for defence and security issues at the IGC?

    Britain’s approach will be practical. We will start with reality, the real challenges, and work out institutional conclusions from there. We will give priority to building security, not building institutions for their own sake.

    Stability and security in Europe does not depend on the European Union alone.

    What do we need? We need arrangements that:

    – First, allow everyone to play their part: not only the 15 members of the EU, but also the many European countries that do not belong to the Union. And, of course, the US and Canada.

    – Second, reflect the diversity of EU member states and their defence policies.

    – Third, respect the obligations of NATO members, including to Allies outside the EU.

    – Fourth, respect the position of EU members that have chosen to remain outside collective defence arrangements.

    Some have argued that the IGC should take the first steps towards an eventual merger of the EU and WEU by subordinating the WEU to political direction by the EU.

    But this would be to put institutional tidiness and the illusion of progress before Europe’s real security needs. It is a recipe not for more action, but for less.

    The European Union has an essential contribution to make to regional and global security in the non-military field. Britain will work hard at the IGC to improve the EU’s ability to do so.

    But encumbering the Union with military responsibilities would do nothing to enhance the unique contribution that the EU can make to greater regional security through the political and economic instruments available to it, even assuming it were politically feasible to fold the Modified Brussels Treaty into the Union Treaty and to replace this Assembly with the European Parliament.

    On the contrary, giving the EU military responsibilities for which it is not equipped would impede the task of extending stability and prosperity to the East, by adding a new obstacle to Central European accession and unnecessarily provoking Russian fears. It would marginalise some NATO Allies. And it would confront some EU member states with choices they are not ready to face. This is not the right way forward. Nor could we support it.

    In March last year, I put forward a series of proposals designed to make a practical contribution to European security: to respond to the challenges of the real world, today and into the foreseeable future.

    Decisions for the longer term can be taken in the longer term. Meanwhile, security will not wait. Today, our task is to deal with the challenges confronting us now. And the challenges now are to reinforce NATO; to develop the WEU as an organisation that allows Europeans to mount operations in close cooperation with our North Atlantic Allies in NATO; and to strengthen cooperation between the WEU and the EU.

    That is my agenda for the Inter-Governmental Conference, and it is an agenda which I warmly commend to the WEU Assembly today.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd February 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

    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.

    Deregulation

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister what action he is taking to ensure that each Government Department lists in its annual report (a) what action it has taken in the past 12 months and (b) what it plans to do in the next 12 months to reduce the regulatory burdens on businesses.

    The Prime Minister: The Government have agreed as part of their response to the deregulation task force’s 1995 annual report, published in September 1995, that all governmental Departments will provide this information in their annual reports. It is for each Secretary of State to ensure that this happens.

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his written answer of 14 February, Official Report, column 592, from what sources of information he assesses the record of Government against their targets for repealing or amending regulations.

    The Prime Minister: I receive regular reports from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on progress under the deregulation initiative. These incorporate information from individual Departments on their progress in repealing and amending regulations.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister how he responded to communications received from Mr. Christopher Muttukumaru; what were the dates of letters; and if he will deposit copies in the Library.

    The Prime Minister: I and my officials have responded to a number of letters from Mr. Muttukumaru, for example, about my evidence to the inquiry in January 1994. Sir Richard Scott is free to publish any document he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. I understand that he proposes to do this as soon as possible.

    Mrs. Golding: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make changes in the personnel of his Department following criticisms contained in the report of the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: I do not envisage making such changes. Where officials criticised in the Scott report had acted conscientiously, in good faith and in accordance with Government policy, it would not normally be appropriate to take disciplinary action against them. If there are cases where disciplinary action is considered appropriate this would be carried out under normal departmental disciplinary procedure.

    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister how many persons and at what level in his Department were involved in considering the Government’s response to the report of the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: Access to the report itself prior to publication was restricted to a very small number of officials in the main Departments concerned in accordance with the procedures agreed with the Scott inquiry. However, the Scott report covered a wide range of policy issues and a number of other officials will have contributed to preparation of the Government’s response without sight of the report. It is not therefore possible to give their number or grades.

    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he had with non-ministerial right hon. and hon. Members before the publication of the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: I had no such consultations on the contents of the Scott report or on the Government’s response to it.

    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will revise “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” following the report of the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” is updated from time to time as the need arises. That will continue to be the case.

    Mr. McNamara: To ask the Prime Minister from which civil servants he took advice before making his decision not to permit members of opposition parties to see the report of the Scott inquiry until three hours before it was presented to the House.

    The Prime Minister: Successive Governments have not disclosed the nature or the specific sources of the advice they receive from the civil service.

    Mr. Kaufman: To ask the Prime Minister when the Scott report was made available to the head of research at Conservative central office.

    The Prime Minister: At 15.30 pm on 15 February 1996.

    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Prime Minister when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: Wednesday 7 February 1996.

    Mr. Allen: To ask the Prime Minister what consultation he had with the Secretary to the Cabinet concerning the Government’s response to the Scott inquiry; and where and when such consultations took place.

    The Prime Minister: I have regular consultations with the Secretary of the Cabinet on current issues affecting the Government. These generally take place in 10 Downing Street. Details of these consultations are private.

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister when he first consulted other Cabinet Ministers about the contents of the report of the Scott inquiry; and where and when such discussions took place and with whom.

    The Prime Minister: I have frequent meetings with Ministers at which we discuss Government business. These meetings usually take place in No. 10 Downing Street. The details of such meetings are private.

    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of the allocation of persons in his Department to the consideration of the Government’s response to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: Access to the report itself prior to publication was restricted to a very small number of officials in the main Departments concerned in accordance with the procedure agreed with the Scott inquiry. However, the Scott report covered a wide range of policy issues and a number of other officials will have contributed to preparation of the Government’s response without sight of the report. It is not therefore possible to give the cost of the work.

    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister what communication he received from the secretary of the Scott inquiry, concerning the time needed by the opposition parties to scrutinise the Scott report; on what date he received such communications; what was the nature of the contents of letters; and if he will deposit copies of those letters in the Library.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer given to him by the President of the Board of Trade today.

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister at what hour and minute of what day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office.

    The Prime Minister: During the afternoon of Wednesday 7 February 1996.

    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report.

    The Prime Minister: A small number of civil servants in each of the main Departments concerned had access to the report prior to publication for the purpose of preparing the Government’s response. Such access was in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Scott inquiry.

    Mr. Banks: To ask the Prime Minister on whose authority it was decided not to permit members of opposition parties to see the report of the Scott inquiry until three hours before the report was presented to the House.

    The Prime Minister: The Government decided, in the light of precedents, that it was appropriate to allow access to Opposition spokesmen three and a half hours before the publication of the report.

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all locations where a full set of the transcripts from the Scott inquiry are lodged.

    The Prime Minister: Transcripts of oral evidence to the Scott inquiry are publicly available from Smith Bernal, Official Court Reports, 167 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2EA, tel. 0171 939 2266. I understand that copies are also available for public consultation in Westminster public libraries. Since transcripts of oral evidence were available to the general public I have no means of identifying the locations of all such transcripts.

    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister how many photocopies the Government have made of the Scott report as of 13 February.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 February 1996]: No photocopies were made of the report as a whole prior to publication. Photocopies of some sections of the report were made, in accordance with agreements reached with the inquiry.

     

    Press Gallery Writing Rooms

    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers in his Department entered the writing rooms of the Press Gallery on 15 February.

    The Prime Minister: If any Ministers did so, that is a matter for them.

  • PMQT – 22 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd February 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    United Nations

    Q1. Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 30 January, Official Report, column 772, what proposals he has made for the abolition of United Nations bodies.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I believe in an effective United Nations. Eliminating waste must be part of that. As I advised the hon. Gentleman recently, that includes, where necessary, a long-term look at the functions and programmes that have outlived their usefulness.

    Dr. Godman: Before any such bodies can be abolished, the United Nations must contend with the election of a new Secretary-General. Why are the Government advocating the re-election of Dr. Boutros Ghali so assiduously? Should not the Prime Minister and other leaders be campaigning for a candidate of the stature of, say, President Mary Robinson of the Irish Republic, or some other stateswoman or statesman of equal standing? As for Dr. Boutros Ghali, should we not be saying cheerio to the old fellow?

    The Prime Minister: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government do not indicate how they will vote on these occasions, and I do not propose to do so now. What I think most important is that the United Nations is efficient, and efficiently run. It is distressing to note that a large number of United Nations bodies have patently outlived their usefulness. They have no proper functions to perform either now or in the future, and they should be removed.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

    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.

    Mr. Bruce: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House–and, indeed, to the public–why, when the reputation of members of his Cabinet is at stake and when the House is to debate a report that he personally commissioned, he is denying the House a substantive motion on which to vote and, moreover, is not prepared to come here and take part in the debate?

    The Prime Minister: I am here every Tuesday and Thursday to answer questions, and I do answer those questions.

    Mr. Mackinlay: Where is the right hon. Gentleman on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays?

    The Prime Minister: If hon. Members wish to have Prime Minister’s Questions on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, I am not entirely sure that they will carry the whole House with them.

    The House will be able to vote on Monday’s motion, and it is very likely that it will do so. If the main charges against the Government had been proved, of course it would have been entirely proper for me to be here to defend that, but they were not proved. Sir Richard has agreed that there was no conspiracy, no cover-up. It is entirely proper that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, to whom the report was addressed, should lead for the Government, and he will do so.

    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is simply unacceptable that an unelected foreign court should put its judgement on British policy before that of a British Home Secretary? If ultimately we have to follow the consequences of backing British opinion and contemplate leaving the European Court of Justice at the expense of pandering to the European liberal intelligentsia, would that not be very much the lesser of two evils?

    The Prime Minister: It is of course extremely disappointing–and to many hon. Members extremely irritating–that the European Court of Human Rights has found against the Government on a procedure that has been used in this country for very many years. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is looking very carefully at the judgment to see precisely what effect it has. I have said before that the Government are not satisfied with some of the rulings made by the European Court of Human Rights and we are pursuing with other members of the Council of Europe precisely what might be done to improve what we believe is a flawed system.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that there are two questions on the Scott report: first, was Parliament misled and, secondly, were Ministers to blame? On the first, the Chancellor has been forced to issue an apology today for a Treasury press release and has admitted that Scott found that Parliament was misled. Does the Prime Minister agree with that? Can we have a clear answer? Does he accept that Scott found that Parliament was misled?

    The Prime Minister: There were two questions, of course, that Sir Richard Scott was asked to investigate, and he investigated both those and other matters as well. The two principal points that Sir Richard was asked to determine were, first, whether Saddam Hussein was illegally supplied with arms–as charged by right hon. and hon. Opposition Members–and he found that he was not; and, secondly, whether there was a conspiracy to pervert justice by an improper use of public interest immunity certificates and, again, he found that there was not.

    On whether Parliament was misled, as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, none of my right hon. Friends intentionally misled Parliament. They did not. If the right hon. Gentleman had read the Scott report carefully, he would know what Sir Richard had to say about that. He would know that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was cleared of duplicitous intent and that he was not accused of deliberately misleading Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman knows that and I am surprised that he keeps pursuing a point that he knows is wrong.

    Mr. Blair: We will come to the question of blame, Ministers deliberately withholding information from Parliament in breach of rules of accountability, not telling the truth when they were in a position to know so–all of which Sir Richard found. Can I have it clearly on the record whether the Prime Minister, leaving aside the question of intention, to which we will come, accepts that Parliament was misled–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: I answered that question on Tuesday. I have answered that question again today and I have made it absolutely clear. There was no intention whatever to mislead Parliament–nor did my right hon. Friends do that on any occasion of which I am aware.

    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister is not prepared to answer the basic question. How has he reached the position of commissioning the report to get at the truth, and three years and millions of pounds later walking away from the findings that he does not like? Just like Nolan, just like Greenbury–it is a textbook definition of Majorism. Can the Prime Minister please tell us whether he accepts the key findings, first, that Parliament was misled and, secondly, that Ministers deliberately withheld information in breach of the rules of ministerial accountability? If he cannot answer them, we will conclude that he is unable and his Government are unable to distinguish between what is true and what is false.

    The Prime Minister: That was not so much a sound bite as a sound nibble. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there was no deceit whatever, and that was apparent from the report. I will tell the House why the right hon. Gentleman keeps moving to these points. He knows that on the substantive issues Sir Richard found in the Government’s favour. He knows that on the issues that the inquiry was set up to consider, the Government were found to have behaved entirely properly. That is why the right hon. Gentleman changes the ground rules.

    On the central issues of the Scott report–the issues that have led the Opposition to blackguard the Government repeatedly over the past three years–Sir Richard found in the Government’s favour. The right hon. Gentleman will scrabble on wherever he can to change what he said before and to hide what he said before, and to try to impute deceit where there was none.

    Dr. Spink: Why are non-wage labour costs in the UK half those of our major competitors? Why is our take-home pay higher than that of our major competitors and why is our unemployment lower? Is it a result of the Government’s policies, which are making us the enterprise centre of Europe?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this country’s favourable economic position. He is equally right to draw attention to the fact that, if we accepted the social costs, through the social chapter as it is now and the social chapter as it would be if any British Government were foolish enough to join it, we would find the same extra costs, the same lack of competitiveness and the same increase in unemployment as we have seen in so many of our competitor countries across Europe. We have no intention of making those mistakes. No party that is genuinely concerned about employment should contemplate such policies, because they will keep people out of work who are out of work at present and they will put out of work people who are in work at present.

     

    Q3. Mr. Mike O’Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

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

    Mr. O’Brien: Returning to the Scott report– [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] Conservative Members suggest that it is boring. It is not boring in my constituency, which is just down the road from Matrix Churchill. Now let the Prime Minister try to give us a straight answer to a straight question. Does he accept the finding of the Scott report that the Attorney-General was personally at fault for failing to pass on the view of the Deputy Prime Minister that the documents for which he claimed public interest immunity should be shown to the defence?

    The Prime Minister: The Attorney-General made it clear to the House on Monday that he took specific steps to ensure, through my right hon. Friend’s special PII certificate, that the judge was alerted to the need for special care. The judge exercised his discretion, precisely as the Attorney-General had said he would, and ordered the disclosure of the relevant papers to the defence. The hon. Gentleman should stop twisting and misinterpreting what happened.

     

    Q4. Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

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

    Mr. Carrington: Does the Prime Minister agree that, with high unemployment in this country and even higher unemployment in our European partner countries, we need policies that will lift the burden off industry to enable it to create jobs? Whatever the wriggling, the Labour party’s support for the social chapter and the minimum wage blows apart its claim to be able to create jobs. All it would do is tax jobs.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that. [Interruption.] I said “my hon. Friend”. Fond though I am of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), I do not regard him as my right hon. Friend in parliamentary terms–[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman seeks repeatedly to interrupt Prime Minister’s Question Time. He reminds me that it was he who said that, after 15 years of deregulation, he did not see much investment flooding in. He should go to Sedgefield, Livingston and all sorts of other places throughout the country to see the inward investment that has been a result of this Government’s policy. It has provided jobs for people whom the right hon. Gentleman’s policies would leave on the scrap heap for ever.

     

    Q5. Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 February.

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

    Mr. McAvoy: The Prime Minister keeps on repeating that the Scott report has cleared his Government. If that is the case, why is he so scared of allowing the House a vote on the future of the two Ministers concerned? What is he scared of?

    The Prime Minister: The House will have its opportunity to debate and to vote on the motion on Monday. I have indicated my confidence in both Ministers. I have indicated that, on the two substantive matters that caused me to set up the Scott report, Sir Richard has cleared the Government of any malpractice whatsoever. I have also said before, and I repeat it again now, that what happened did bring out shortcomings in some areas. I said that last week and I repeat it again today. We will take those shortcomings very seriously. We are examining what Sir Richard had to say and we will bring before the House speedily our proposed measures to remedy those things that need changing.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st February 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister if he will support the setting up of an eminent persons group to seek to discuss a possible settlement to the conflict in Kashmir; and if he will make a settlement.

    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any plans to set up an eminent persons group. We continue to believe that the best way forward on Kashmir should involve simultaneous progress on dialogue between India and Pakistan; improvement in human rights in Kashmir and a genuine political process there; and a clear cessation of support for violence in Kashmir.

     

    Naturalisation

    Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions in 1993 Government Whips submitted written statements or were consulted on individual applications for naturalisation as a British citizen; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 February 1996]: In 1993, Home Office Ministers and officials in the immigration and nationality department received 10 letters from six hon. Members who were Government Whips about individual applications for naturalisation as a British citizen, all of which were constituency cases.

    Correspondence from the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) cannot be located immediately. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will write to the hon. Member shortly.

    No Government Whips were consulted about any individual cases for naturalisation.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many civil servants have been assigned to work on the Government’s response to the Scott report as of 13 February;

    (2) if he will list the grades and job titles of all civil servants who have worked on the preparation of the Government’s response to the Scott report.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 February 1996]: The information is not held centrally and could therefore be assembled only at disproportionate cost. Access to the report itself prior to publication was, however, restricted to a small number of officials in the main Departments concerned.

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his written statement and replies to written questions posed by Sir Richard Scott to the inquiry into trade with Iraq.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 February 1996]: I understand that Sir Richard Scott will be publishing these documents as soon as practicable.

    Mr. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will now list the titles of each of the papers his office made available to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 February 1996]: I understand that Sir Richard Scott will be making available the source documents referred to in his report and responses to requests for written evidence as soon as possible.

     

    Iraq (Equipment Exports)

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the companies or individuals which made the representations referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) on 24 November 1992, Official Report, column 583.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 February 1996]: No. The names of companies or individuals who have corresponded with my Department is confidential unless they give their permission for this information to be disclosed.

     

    Chile (Armaments Production)

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what communications (a) he and (b) other Ministers received from Dr. Carlos Cardoen of Chile since 1985 over the procurement of British machine tools for the production of armaments in Chile.

    The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, we have no record of any such communications having been received from Dr. Carlos Cardoen.