The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1992

  • Text of the NATO Communique – 21 October 1992

    Below is the text of the NATO Communique, issued on 21st October 1992.

    FINAL COMMUNIQUE

    The Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) of the North Atlantic Alliance met at Gleneagles, Scotland, on 20 and 21 October 1992. Iceland attended as an observer.

    We used this occasion to have wide-ranging discussions on developments in the security environment that affect NATO. The Alliance’s new Strategic Concept underlines the importance of the Alliance’s role in crisis management and warns of the risks to European security that may arise from serious economic, social and political difficulties, including ethnic rivalries and territorial disputes. We are deeply disturbed by the continuing violence and destruction in and around Europe and, in particular, we deplore the tragic and worsening situation in the former Yugoslavia. As made clear last June in Oslo , the Alliance is prepared to support peacekeeping activities, including by making available Alliance resources and expertise, and thus contribute to the peaceful settlement of disputes. In our discussions we therefore agreed on the need to intensify ongoing practical work within the Alliance, so that NATO is better prepared to respond to the international community when required for this purpose, and we agreed review progress at our December Defence Planning Committee meeting. We also propose to discuss peacekeeping issues at the next meeting of Defence Ministers with our cooperation partners.

    In keeping with our approach to peacekeeping, a NATO naval force is monitoring, in cooperation with the Western European Union, the United Nations (UN) embargo and sanctions in the Adriatic, and a NATO airborne early warning force is monitoring the UN “no-fly” zone in effect over Bosnia-Herzegovina. Allies are also making substantial contributions of forces to the provision and protection of humanitarian assistance and to the operational headquarters of the expanded UN Protection Force in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We stand ready to provide further support to the efforts of the UN to bring peace to the former Yugoslavia.

    In our discussions on nuclear policy, we received with appreciation briefings by the United States and the United Kingdom on their nuclear forces. We also reviewed progress in adapting NATO’s nuclear planning, procedures and force posture to the changing political and military environment. In this context we further refined policy guidance in accordance with our new Strategic Concept, which provides for a reduced reliance on nuclear weapons whilst reaffirming the essential role for the Alliance of effective nuclear forces, including those based in Europe. The reduction and restructuring of NATO’s substrategic nuclear forces in Europe which we endorsed in Taormina continue to progress well.

    All nuclear warheads from NATO’s ground-launched and naval tactical nuclear weapons have now been removed, much earlier than originally envisaged, and those weapons designated to be destroyed are being retired and scheduled for destruction. The reductions in the number of air-delivered nuclear weapons, the only remaining sub-strategic systems to be held by the Alliance in Europe, are underway.
    We have welcomed the announced completion of the withdrawal of all ground-launched tactical nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union into Russia for destruction. However, we also attach great importance that the parallel commitment to withdraw naval tactical nuclear weapons and to destroy a portion of them should also be fulfilled. We are encouraged by the progress that has been made by Allies in contributing to ensure the safe and secure transport, storage and destruction of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union and we will continue consultations in the Alliance on this most important subject.

    We welcomed the agreements reached between the United States and Russia to cut their strategic arsenals dramatically and, in particular, to eliminate land-based multiple-warhead intercontinental ballistic missiles, the most de-stabilising systems. We also welcomed the arrangements for the implementation of the START Treaty agreed in Lisbon. We look forward to the early completion of the process of ratification of the Treaty by all concerned and the subsequent removal of all strategic nuclear warheads from Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Recalling the accords of Alma Ata and Minsk, and the undertakings in Lisbon, we urge those three countries to take immediate steps to accede to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as non-nuclear weapon states.

    Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a matter of great concern to all of us. It is vital that the international consensus against the proliferation of nuclear weapons is sustained and strengthened. In this context we reaffirmed our support for the NPT, the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and for its indefinite extension in 1995. We welcomed the recent accession of a number of countries to the Treaty as non-nuclear weapon states and we urge all those states who are not yet parties to accede. We also welcomed the conclusion of the negotiations on the global prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction.

    We urge the earliest accession to this agreement by all countries.

    The Spring 1993 NPG Ministerial meeting will be held at NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 October 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister what is the total, to date, of the financial assistance given by Her Majesty’s Government to fund the cost of maintaining refugees from the former states of Yugoslavia; what is the total, to date, of financial assistance given by Her Majesty’s Government to fund humanitarian relief in the former states of Yugoslavia; and what proposals Her Majesty’s Government have for increasing the United Kingdom contribution.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 October 1992] : I announced yesterday an additional bilateral British contribution of £15 million in the light of reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This brings Britain’s total commitment of humanitarian aid for victims of the conflict in former Yugoslavia to over £70 million; of this, £29.5 million is bilateral aid and £41 million our share of European Community actions.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Coal Mine Closures – 20 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on coal mine closures, made in an interview on Tuesday 20th October 1992.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was retreating on the coal mine closures].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t think it is the case in that way at all. What you have seen is a fundamental shift in understanding of what we intend. A very frenetic atmosphere yesterday and I think many of the implications of the moratorium simply weren’t understood but it was never out intention that during the moratorium there should be anything other than a full examination of all these matters. It is right that there should be.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why Michael Heseltine hadn’t admitted the DTI Select Committee should examine the issue].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a matter for the Select Committee, it is not a matter for the Government. The Select Committee are independent of the Government, they were set up for that reason, but it was never a practical likelihood that one wouldn’t have a change of policy to deal with the difficulties of the pits and then not have a proper examination by a Select Committee. It is right there should be. It never occurred to Michael Heseltine or indeed anybody else that this wouldn’t be a matter that the Select Committee would properly look at.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why Michael Heseltine was saying only minor changes would be considered].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We didn’t suddenly scratch our heads and decide that this was the right policy. There are some very economic realities. Pit reductions and jobs disappearing in the mining industry isn’t a new phenomenon. During every year in the 1970s, for example, under both governments, governments of all sorts, ministers of all sorts, there were 30,000 jobs lost every single year and is because the demand for coal has been contracting over a very long period of time. That economic reality remains the same today.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was hope].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are having a moratorium; the pits aren’t closed and our minds aren’t closed. What we will seek to do is to open up the possibility for people to make representations, to make their case. If the miners want to make a case with professional help and make that case to the President of the Board of Trade, they can do so.

  • PMQT – 20 October 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 October.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend’s commitment to putting Britain first, will he confirm that the Government attach priority to getting this country out of recession and creating jobs?

    The Prime Minister : All across Europe and beyond, economic circumstances are very difficult and in recent months have worsened noticeably in a number of countries. We are seeking the right policies to bring back not just recovery to this country but recovery with low inflation. The interest rate reductions that we have been able to make and the increasing competitiveness of the exchange rate will enable us to lead this country back to recovery with the low inflation and sustained growth that we need.

    Mr. Bell : In the light of the statements made by the president of the Bundesbank and by the chairman of the Italian central bank that a general realignment was available to the British Government prior to Black Wednesday, will the Prime Minister answer the question that his Chancellor of the Exchequer failed to answer when he appeared before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee or at the Dispatch Box? Was there or was there not a general realignment–either formal or informal–on the table?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to answer that categorically. No, there was not–formal or informal.

     

    Q2. Mr. Adley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 October.

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

    Mr. Adley : Referring to matters that are in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is some linkage between electricity privatisation and the current problems in the coal industry? This morning I heard from British Rail that if the proposed mine closures go through, British Rail will face a bill in excess of £200 million in terms of lost revenue and redundancy payments. Will my right hon. Friend please give a clear assurance that if there are to be any further privatisations, either of industry or of the nation’s transport infrastructure, a full cost-benefit analysis will be provided to the House so that it may assess the full national implications?

    The Prime Minister : Many of the problems faced by the coal industry — those that it faces at present and those that it has faced over many years–preceded privatisation. They have far more to do with the demand for coal and the changing energy market in this country. It is for that reason that there has been a severe contraction of the coal industry, not only in this country but in France, Belgium and Germany, and elsewhere.

    As for my hon. Friend’s specific question about the railways, the White Paper published in July was preceded by a great deal of thought, discussion and consultation inside government, and consultation continues on all matters.

    Mr. Ashdown : Having been found out seeking to close down the coal industry quickly by rigging the market, are not the Government now asking to be allowed to close down the coal industry slowly by rigging a review? Is that not the proposition that their Back Benchers are being asked to swallow?

    The Prime Minister : No, that is not an accurate reflection of the policy that the Government are following–as yesterday’s statement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made perfectly clear. No one doubts, and no one has disputed, that over many years, under all Governments, there has been a continuing and severe contraction of the coal industry, owing to factors that were unavoidable.

    The Government now face the fact that, even at existing coal prices–which we are now aware will be noticeably lower in future–the market is contracting, and coal stocks are growing daily. The Government cannot ignore that problem. The sooner they deal with it, the sooner we shall be able comprehensively to establish assistance measures that will provide alternative employment and alternative security in areas where people know that existing jobs have at best only a limited life.

     

    Q3. Dr. Spink : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 October.

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

    Dr. Spink : Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the 1 per cent. cut in interest rates that was made on Friday, which will do so much to help all the people who have to repay mortgages and to help businesses, large and small? Does he agree that the key to resolving our unemployment difficulties and taking us out of the teeth of the world recession is low inflation, which we are achieving?

    The Prime Minister : We have now achieved low inflation in terms of both the retail prices index and the underlying inflation rate, at a level that we have not seen for many years. It is undoubtedly helpful to British industry that it has been possible to reduce interest rates to 8 per cent. I was particularly pleased by the consequential mortgage rate reductions that were announced today.

    As my hon. Friend suggested, however, we must bear it in mind that it is not simply a question of low interest rates. It is also vitally important for our future prosperity to restrain any reinflationary surge that may follow. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that keeping inflation low–one of the essential ingredients for the sustained encouragement of jobs, prosperity and growth–remains central to the Government’s policy.

    Mr. John Smith : It is crystal clear that, whatever else he did yesterday, the President of the Board of Trade did not announce a review of the pit closure programme. Will the Prime Minister now agree to establish a genuine and independent review before any pit is closed for ever?

    The Prime Minister : So that there is no dispute or misunderstanding anywhere in the House, let me make clear the position of the 10 pits identified by my right hon. Friend, and that of the others that he mentioned in his statement. In our judgment, the 10 pits that he specifically named have no sustainable economic future, but the full statutory review procedure will take place. I have no doubt that, during the moratorium on the other pits, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will wish to hold its own inquiry, and the Government will give that their fullest co-operation.

    During the moratorium, the President of the Board of Trade will himself take views and evidence to consider alongside the information already available to him on all matters. In due course he will publish that material, in time for consideration by the House and before any future debate in the House. His statement will be set in the context of the Government’s energy policy and will set out the consequences of that policy for British Coal, the implications for individual pits and the employment prospects for the industry. It is after that debate that future decisions will be made.

    Mr. Smith : I remind the Prime Minister of the question that I asked him, which was whether he would establish a genuine and independent review. If the Prime Minister really believes that he has a strong case, what has he to lose from an independent inquiry? What is he afraid of?

    The Prime Minister : Let me refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer that I gave. When we have completed the consultation and the examination–which, I repeat, will be made public and which, I repeat, will also be laid before this House–there will be every opportunity for every view to be taken into account before matters proceed.

    Mr. Smith : Is it not now clear that the only satisfactory alternative to constantly shifting statements from the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade, and to the unseemly Dutch auction which is going on among Conservative Back Benchers, is for this House tomorrow night to vote to refer the whole matter to our own Select Committee and for that to be the responsibility of Members in all parts of the House?

    The Prime Minister : It is clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not listening, for I said that it was an assumption of the Government that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry would wish to consider this matter and that we would provide whatever evidence was necessary to the Committee. Notwithstanding the tremendous emotions that have arisen about this whole affair, it is bogus of the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to recall the vast number of mines that were closed by the Labour Government, the large number of miners who were put out of work by his Government and the activities of his Government in recent years that played a significant part in reducing employment in the mining industry from 700,000 down to the present level.

    Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the concern that is being expressed about the closure programme is very much bound up with the wider concern about the direction of our economy, post-ERM? Does he not agree that with a low value for sterling it really is essential that we have a policy of import substitution, of “Buy British”, and that we should not build gas-fired power stations when we have already got 50 per cent. too much gas generating capacity? If my right hon. Friend were to put those facts into the review, he would find that he had the enthusiastic support of people like myself, who are deeply concerned about what is being proposed.

    The Prime Minister : I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the changing level of the exchange rate offers the most remarkable opportunities for British exporters and also offers a better incentive for import substitution than we have seen for many years. My hon. Friend also needs to remember that we are by instinct a trading nation and that we must bear that in mind in all the policies that we follow. As I made clear a few moments ago, what the Government are seeking to do and will continue to do in the period up to and including the public expenditure round is to look at the difficulties that this economy faces and at the right possibilities and the right policies, in order to build on present economic circumstances a proper level of growth for the British economy and for British industry.

     

    Q4. Mr. Andrew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 October.

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

    Mr. Smith : Can the Prime Minister understand that it is my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who has spoken for Britain? Can the Prime Minister name one independent expert who is prepared to say that gas will produce cheaper electricity than coal? The President of the Board of Trade could not name one yesterday. Can the Prime Minister name one this afternoon–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : If that were not the case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain to the House why the demand for gas among consumers across the country is rising dramatically and shows signs of rising even further.

    Mr. Rathbone : Despite all the difficulties being faced at this moment by this country and by other countries, will the Prime Minister give the House and the nation reassurance that we shall continue our efforts to aid countries in the developing world which suffer even greater difficulties than we do?

    The Prime Minister : We have a very proud record indeed in that respect, in terms of the quantum of aid that we provide, in terms of the quality of aid that we provide, and in terms of keeping open markets in this country for the exports of those countries which, in many ways, is the greatest assistance that we can provide to the developing world. In my statement in a few moments on the European Council, I shall also set out some extra help to other countries which face particular needs at present.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Birmingham European Council – 20 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement in the House of Commons on the Birmingham European Council, made on 20th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Birmingham on Friday last. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the United Kingdom.

    I should like to thank the city of Birmingham, its leaders and its people– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I know that hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber have business elsewhere in the House. Will they leave quietly so that we can hear what the Prime Minister has to say?

    The Prime Minister : I should like to thank the city of Birmingham, its leaders and its people for the effectiveness and speed of their organisation of the European summit.

    Following the events in the financial markets a month ago, a number of EC member states asked for this meeting to help to restore confidence throughout the Community and to address the issues raised by the market turbulence. Amongst those concerns, clearly evident in the referendums in Denmark and France, was the unease that too many decisions were being taken centrally in Brussels. The summit conclusions on these and other issues are in the Library of the House.

    Let me deal first with economic and monetary co-operation. At Friday’s meeting we reaffirmed our commitment to pursue open market policies, to control budget deficits, and to reduce inflation. It was unanimously agreed that these are the basis for recovery and for the creation of new and lasting jobs here and in the Community as a whole.

    The European Council also reaffirmed the necessity of the work set in hand by Finance Ministers after the recent turmoil in the currency markets. It was agreed that the work will involve Finance Ministers, the Monetary Committee, Central Bank governors and the Commission. It will cover recent economic and financial developments in Europe and the implications of changes in the economic environment in recent years. In particular, it will look at the impact of the increasing size and sophistication of financial markets and greater capital liberalisation.

    One critical discussion concerned the negotiations for a general agreement on tariffs and trade Uruguay round settlement. Over the past two weeks, significant progress had been made between the Commission and the United States in all sectors of the negotiation. I asked Commissioner Andriessen to report to the European Council. At the end of our discussion, the Commission was given the authority to continue to negotiate with the intention of reaching a satisfactory conclusion within the next 10 weeks. Subsequently, further useful progress was made in talks in Canada over the weekend. A GATT settlement would make a vital contribution to recovery and would be very much in Britain’s interest. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, it would lead to an extra $200 billion in annual world output.

    In the Birmingham declaration we also took significant steps towards bringing the Community closer to ordinary people. The declaration agreed at Birmingham has a number of distinct elements. It recognises the importance of national identity. It acknowledges that the Community can act only where member states have given it the power to do so in the treaties. It lays down that action at the Community level should happen only when necessary. It calls for new guidelines, so that when Community action is taken it takes the lightest possible form. It introduces better consultation by the Commission before proposals are brought forward. It calls for a greater role for national Parliaments in the work of the Community.

    The declaration provides, for the first time, a proper framework for the practical definition and implementation of subsidiarity. We agreed that, at the Edinburgh European Council in two months’ time, we must make a reality of that principle. All members of the European Council agreed to take decisions at Edinburgh to make subsidiarity an integral part of future EC decision making. That change of attitude by the Council and the Commission is as important as the procedures and criteria to be introduced.

    Prime Minister Schluter of Denmark reported to the European Council on the present state of discussion on the Maastricht treaty within Denmark. The Danish Government have published a White Paper and will produce specific ideas shortly. It remains their aim to ratify the treaty, and we plan to set in place at Edinburgh the framework that will allow them to do so.

    The Birmingham Council also gave us an opportunity to review our action to relieve suffering in Somalia and Yugoslavia. The Community has given a lead in both countries. In Somalia we called for an immediate ceasefire to allow for the rapid deployment of United Nations troops and for the distribution of aid and agreed to try to expedite these deployments.

    In Yugoslavia, at British initiative, a Community humanitarian force will be established. It will support the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in delivering humanitarian aid. The Community will speed up aid already pledged, which includes 120,000 tonnes of food. We have invited the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to hold a meeting of experts as soon as possible to make sure that that aid gets through without delay. There will be a follow-up meeting in a few weeks’ time to ensure that effective action is being taken. Member states also pledged further staff and resources to strengthen the UNHCR effort. I can today announce a further £15 million of bilateral aid to provide 22 more trucks, 10 Land Rovers, shelter, medical supplies and personnel. Deliveries will start very shortly.

    A confident and successful Community is a vital interest of this country. Sixty per cent. of our visible trade is with the Community. Much of our external investment comes from the Community. Eight of our top 10 trading partners are in the Community. With less than three months to go to the completion of the single market, which could raise Community output by more than 4 per cent., it was vital to re-establish confidence in the interests of stability, recovery, growth and jobs in all our countries. The Birmingham European Council did precisely that.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 October 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Pitchford Hall

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what representations he has had on Her Majesty’s Government’s response to requests to take into public ownership Pitchford Hall and its contents in Shropshire;

    (2) what discussions Her Majesty’s Government have had with (a) Lord Rothschild of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, (b) Hugh Stirling of the National Trust and (c) Jocelyn Stevens of English Heritage on the future of the contents of Pitchford Hall in Shropshire.

    The Prime Minister : I have written to the hon. Member and have placed a copy of the letter in the Library.

     

    Racial Harmony

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will use the United Kingdom presidency to promote a European Community directive on racial harmony;

    (2) what steps he has taken under his presidency of the European Community to promote racial harmony in the Community.

    The Prime Minister : The Government are opposed absolutely to discrimination on grounds of race. This position is reflected in all our discussions with our European partners on these matters. The detailed legislative arrangements in other member states are, however, a matter for them, taking account of their particular circumstances.

    During the United Kingdom presidency the Government will be taking any appropriate opportunity to encourage our European Community colleagues to consider best practice in combating racial discrimination. One such opportunity will be the equal opportunities conference to be hosted by the Department of Employment in Birmingham from 7 to 8 December.

     

    Classless Society

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has brought forward in his presidency of the EC to realise a classless society.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s policies are aimed, and will continue to be aimed, at widening opportunities for all members of society. The education, health and other public service reforms, including the citizens charter, will take this process forward during our presidency of the EC and beyond. A European conference on public services and the citizen will be held in London in December as part of the United Kingdom presidency.

     

    Olympic Games

    Mr. Alfred Morris : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement detailing the Government’s financial commitment to Manchester’s Olympic 2000 bid and the timing of its implementation.

    The Prime Minister : On 26 February I announced a £55 million support package for Manchester’s Olympic 2000 bid. Of this, £53 million is towards the provision of facilities in advance of the nomination and £2 million is to support the bid itself. The International Olympic Committee will decide the host city in September 1993. If Manchester’s bid is successful, the Government will contribute to the provision of necessary facilities for the games.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 19 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview at Downing Street, London, before a Cabinet meeting on Monday 19th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I called a meeting last night of senior colleagues and interested ministers. We discussed the question of the coal problems for two to two and a half hours. The purpose of this morning’s Cabinet meeting is to consider the conclusions we reached on that occasion and after the Cabinet meeting Mr Heseltine will announce the outcome of that in the House this afternoon.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Jacques Delors – 16 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Jacques Delors, held in Birmingham on Friday 16th October 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I, before I turn to the substance of today’s European Council, express my thanks to the City of Birmingham for their hospitality and for the use of these splendid facilities here today. It has been the first time that the government have had a conference of this sort in Birmingham and I would like to express my thanks to everyone concerned for the splendid way in which the organisation has worked.

    May I now turn to the substance of the European Council and the reason it was called. Let me begin by painting the picture behind it. Last year nearly 60 percent of Britain’s visible trade was with our European Community partners. Half of the external investment in the United Kingdom comes from within the European Community. Eight of our top ten world trading partners are members of the European Community. And I mention those figures to illustrate how vital the Community is for our prosperity, for our economy and for our jobs. And I think you will find the same picture in each and every one of the European Community nations.

    In the last few weeks the very difficult situation of recession has been compounded by massive turbulence on the Foreign Exchange Markets. Those two things combined dealt a body blow to confidence, not just in the United Kingdom, but in many areas right throughout the European Community. It was above all confidence that we needed to restore. That was why there was a request from a number of European partners for the European Council we have had today and that was why I called the meeting.

    Every single issue that we have discussed today has an important bearing on the successful development of the Community. And that is especially vital just three months before the single market comes into force; a market which could, when it is in force, bring around 5 percent extra growth in European Community GDP. And so the outcome of the meeting in the Birmingham Declaration and in our conclusions is of importance to our future and to our prosperity.

    Let me start with economic and monetary cooperation. Firstly, we have reaffirmed our determination to reduce inflation, to control budget deficits and pursue open market policies, not I emphasise just for their own sake but because each of us in the Community believe that that is the basis for recovery, the basis for social and economic cohesion and the basis for the creation of new and lasting jobs.

    Secondly, we have all put our authority behind the work set in hand by Finance Ministers following the recent turbulence in the currency markets. We believe that is important and we believe Finance Ministers and Bank Governors are the right people to carry it out.

    Thirdly, we have endorsed the progress made by the Commission in negotiating a settlement of the Uruguay Round and we have given them authority to work for a conclusion to that round by the end of this year. And I cannot stress how important such a settlement would be for recovery – an extra 200 billion dollars in wealth created every 10 years – that is the scale of the prize that hangs there if we can get a successful outcome to the Uruguay Round.

    Fourthly, we have in the Birmingham Declaration taken important steps towards giving the Community back to the people to whom it is answerable. That I think when people study the declaration will meet many of the concerns that have been expressed not just in the United Kingdom but in France, in Denmark and in countries right across the Community.

    And fifthly, we have taken a significant initiative to set up our humanitarian aid to Yugoslavia.

    In our discussions today right the way round the table there was a real sense that the success of the Community depends upon decisions being taken as close as possible to the individual Community citizens. President Delors in a presentation today highlighted a number of new commitments by the European Commission:

    – firstly, Community legislation should be more limited, should be clearer and should be better explained;

    – secondly, there should be more consultation by the Commission, we have in mind by White Papers and by Green Papers, a system of consultation very familiar to us in the United Kingdom and very welcome;

    – and thirdly, a Commission work programme each year which national parliaments would each and all be able to discuss. And Commissioners also should be designated to liaise with each national parliament.

    A common theme in the interventions by the European Community Heads of Government was that we should move together as a Community of Twelve, I emphasise that, a Community of Twelve, no inner core, no fast track, no slow track, no-one left behind, no inner groups, that was a constant theme of our discussions this morning.

    In our discussions a number of practical suggestions were made as well. I illustrate perhaps just two. President Mitterrand suggested we should hive off some decisions which had gone too far and should look between now and Edinburgh for specific examples of issues which need not be dealt with at the Community level. Chancellor Kohl, if I may give another example, urged the need for decisions to be taken at the level appropriate to that decision. And everyone had in their mind in those remarks the sort of unnecessary interference which all of us – the Commission, the Council, all of us – must now do our best to stop.

    All of that is set out in the declaration in what I hope will be seen by people not as legal language but as a simple straightforward easy to read guide to the sort of objectives we are going to seek. We are looking for a more open Community, a Community that respects national traditions, a Community which only acts where member states have given it the power to do so and then only when it is necessary to do so, a Community which has the lightest possible form of legislation with maximum freedom for member states.

    Those are some of the principles we have agreed today and those principles that we have agreed today will be translated into concrete action by Edinburgh. Some of the work is in hand, more of it will be put in hand so we can reach firm decisions, not pious hopes, firm decisions by the time we get to Edinburgh.

    In coming to Birmingham today the European Council has brought Europe right to the heart of Britain, I thoroughly welcome that. It is through Europe that the economic lifeblood of our country increasingly flows these days. We shall soon have a single market of over 350 million people in the European Community. Outside the Community other countries – Austria, the EFTANS, in due course some of the East Europeans – all wish to join the European Community. The market over time will get progressively bigger, progressively more valuable and progressively more vital to our national interest and the national interest of every European nation.

    After the squalls of the last few weeks it was necessary for us to meet and re-set our course, re-emphasise what it was we were about. There are difficult times now in each country in the European Community. And so today’s meeting was not just about the Maastricht Treaty, it was not just about subsidiarity, bringing things nearer to people, it was about reaffirming and re-ensuring an open Community that is open and viable politically and viable economically. That was what was in the minds of the Heads of Government, the Commission and everyone else present today and it was on that basis that we reached the decisions set out in our Council conclusions and in the three declarations – the Birmingham declaration and the declarations on Yugoslavia and on Somalia – which no doubt you have seen by now.

    1. DELORS:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, now the Prime Minister has two press conferences, one after the other, so I do not want to hold you up. May I just say that this exceptional meeting of the European Council was indispensable as the President of the Council has just stressed. It enabled us to raise the level of trust and confidence among the Twelve and to have a joint assertion to press ahead with the building of Europe on a basis which is understandable to the citizens of Europe and with a confirmed and resolute determination. I think that was necessary.

    I myself expressed fears that given the events of the last few weeks a lack of trust could have emerged between member states and now I am reassured and today’s discussion, particularly this morning, was extremely rich and politically useful. and I think it augers well for the future of the Community.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (James Blaze, Radio VIP International, Mexico):

    Prime Minister, you talk about looking forward to a single European market in the future, Mexico has just signed the North American Free Trade Agreement which is involving Mexico, Canada and the United States, what is your reaction to the signing of the NAFTA and do you think that a single European market would mirror many aspects of that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly welcome the North American Free Trade Agreement, I think it is a great step forward, it will be immensely helpful for Mexico. It is an important part of the Americas initiatives that President Bush has followed with I think some success over the last couple of years or so.

    In the single market in Europe, the single market has been something we have sought for some time. We are over 90 percent there. Of the measures that are necessary to complete the single market, 90 percent are concluded, a number are in the course of conclusion and we aim to complete the single market by Edinburgh at the end of this year. And the importance of it is it will remove barriers and it will open up a great deal of opportunity in terms of the United Kingdom, particularly for the City and elsewhere, but extra opportunities for each Community nation.

    When I say we will complete the single market by Edinburgh, I do not necessarily mean that each and every one of the single market ambitions will be concluded, but we will be sufficiently close to each and every one being concluded for us to be able to declare the single market properly open for business, and I illustrated to you earlier how valuable that would be for growth of Community GDP.

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds, BBC Radio):

    How confident can you be that you are going to conduct your affairs with greater openness in view of the fact that you refused to let TV cameras in for any stage of your proceedings today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think openness comes in many forms, it certainly comes in forms of greater openness in consultation and greater openness in explaining what decisions are, greater openness in contacts with national parliaments. Thus far we have not opened Cabinet discussions to television and lots of other things either. But I do not exclude the possibility of television being there for part of discussions in future, that is one of the matters we are examining, but we have to examine that and reach agreement with all our Community partners about it. My personal view is that I think there is a case for it and I think it would be very wise, for example, to have a general discussion, perhaps in the Foreign Affairs Council once a year where it was entirely open to the public, televised perhaps if televisers wish to televise it, in which we can discuss the principles of the Community, where we are going and matters of that sort. That is certainly something we will wish to continue to discuss with our European partners and I hope we will reach an open conclusion.

    QUESTION (Vincent Hanna, A Week in Politics):

    I was interested in your statement about the idea of a Commissioner being accountable in some way to each national parliament, does that mean that you envisage at some point a Commissioner appearing before Westminster or a Select Committee at Westminster and answering questions and taking part in a debate, that would be unprecedented in our Parliament?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not in the Chamber itself, no Vincent. Firstly I should make clear we are not talking about extra Commissioners, we are talking about a Commissioner being allocated who would have a particular responsibility for liaison with one national parliament. I would not envisage that that Commissioner would appear in the Chamber of the House of Commons or Lords, indeed in terms of our constitution they could not, but certainly that they would answer appeals perhaps to appear before Select Committees or Backbench committees of any of the parties at Westminster so there is a different and better relationship. One of the things that strikes me quite starkly about the relationship between national parliaments and the European Community as a whole is the lack of understanding between the two, the lack of coordination between the two, and I think this is one way in which we can improve it. Having said that, I think it would be appropriate to ask M. Delors to comment, for it was his initiative that we should actually look at this particular proposition, and I warmly welcome it.

    1. DELORS:

    It seemed to me that in order to involve national parliaments more in terms of getting them to express their opinions about the Community and get information about the Community, a lot would depend on national practices, relations between national governments and national parliaments and also there was the idea of convening a conference of the European Parliament and national parliaments now and again. But that is not enough. Whether you are talking about Select Committees in the House of Commons or parliamentary committees in other countries, I think it would be useful and that was the proposal I made for these Parliamentary committees to know that among the members of the Commission there is one person who is particularly responsible for liaising with that national parliament who could appear before a Select Committee in order to provide information they need when they need it. Now of course I would make it clear straight away that for example the correspondent from the Bundesbank would not be German and the correspondent for the House of Commons would not be British, it would be better that way because that way they would get to know each other better. After twinning cities we would have twinning personalities.

    QUESTION (Mike White, Guardian):

    British authorities lowered interest rates today, I wondered if that was discussed at all at the Council and whether President Delors thought it was likely to increase the probability that Britain will re-enter the Exchange Rate Mechanism quickly or delay that? Secondly, we had expected to hear a little more about the economic recovery plan and the ideas associated with M. Delors, what has the summit done for Europe’s rising numbers of unemployed, including the British miners?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The question of British interest rate levels was not discussed and neither in the form you put it was the second matter you raised. As to the rest of your question, I will be holding a domestic press conference immediately after this and I think that is more relevant to that press conference.

    QUESTION (BBC Newsnight):

    Did you identify any concrete areas of common ground where all countries agree that Brussels currently exerts too much power? And secondly, is there anything that you said about subsidiarity that takes the information in the Maastricht Treaty any further?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have sought in the Birmingham Declaration to give more flesh to what subsidiarity means. But if I may borrow a very old English saying, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and we will actually see that when we come to Edinburgh and when we will be able to answer the first part of your question and we will have a specific list of illustrations of the way in which subsidiarity will work. And also we will be able to respond to the point that the Commission are also examining and that is those areas of legislation that previously the Community has been involved in where perhaps in future it need not be involved in. We have to seek the agreement of all twelve nations, work has been going on for this for some time, it is intended that we can reach conclusions at Edinburgh and I hope then that we will be able to put a good deal more detail behind the question you ask. It is the right question to ask, we will be able to answer it at Edinburgh.

    QUESTION:

    On the question of the GATT your declaration seems to be positive and urges a GATT agreement by the end of the year. However, the American administration wish to achieve a breakthrough on the GATT by 3 November and this looks like it will not meet that request. Also the French President told us a few minutes ago that he had insisted that the term under the present mandate be maintained in the statement and that seems to limit the Commission’s freedom. Can you give any reason why Americans should not think this is a backward step on the GATT rather than the forward step it looks like?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No it is not a backward step, most certainly it is not a backward step, and there was complete unanimity in the European Council about the economic advantages of reaching a conclusion to the Uruguay Round, not only the advantages of reaching it but the very severe disadvantages that could follow if we did not reach it.

    As to the timing, let me firstly say something about progress. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that in the meetings last week between the Community negotiators and Mrs Hills and Mr Madigan very substantial progress was made, not just in agriculture but in services, market access, financial services, a whole range of issues, far more progress than we have made in meetings for a very long time indeed. The negotiators believe more progress can be made. The end of the year is the target that has been set but it may be well in advance of that. The negotiators will be meeting again next weekend but of course that is the bilateral negotiation between the Community and the United States. They would then need to go to Geneva in order to sort out the details of their agreement with the other participants to the GATT agreement, of which there are a large number. But I think there is more optimism about the prospects of making progress today than there has been for some time and certainly a good deal more optimism than there was before the meetings over last weekend.

    QUESTION (Dutch TV):

    The Dutch Prime Minister has just said that the Danes are very close to a conclusion about Maastricht, in fact that they will come with concrete proposals within two weeks, can you now tell us when Maastricht will return to the House of Commons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I have indicated some time ago that the preparatory debate that we have to have in the House of Commons before the committee stage can come back will be held shortly after the House of Commons returns. Once we have had that debate we can make a firm decision about the return of the bill to the House of Commons. But the bill will return and will go through the House of Commons in the present session of parliament.

    QUESTION (Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph):

    On the GATT, this is surely a French political problem more than anything else, you rightly allude to the progress made on Monday night and I wonder whether it was ever part of your strategy, given that both you and the Foreign Secretary have been at summits when the British Government has been quite ruthlessly isolated and voted down over an issue in the name of European Union, and that given under Article 113 of the Treaty of Rome it is possible to decide agricultural issues by qualified majority vote, did it ever occur to you that it might be advantageous at this stage to simply proceed to a vote on the question of agricultural subsidies with the French and vote them down at this summit or did you think that was not the way we did things?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have not got an outcome of the negotiations to determine yet. The negotiations on the agriculture element still continue, there are still some differences about import substitution and cereal production levels and export subsidies, there are still some differences in those areas to be resolved so it is not possible for us to determine how to reach an agreement until we have actually got an agreement that the Community collectively can decide upon. But it is the Commission that has the negotiating rights for the Community.

    What was vital today was to ensure that the Commission were given a continued mandate, to continue their negotiations firstly with the Americans bilaterally and ultimately thereafter to go straight off to Geneva and see if they could conclude a GATT agreement. That is the mandate that the Commission has and it means that the negotiations for a GATT agreement remain on track and proceed. Once the Commission are in a position to recommend a conclusion to us then we have to decide how it is determined, how it is agreed by the Community and as you rightly say that can be by qualified majority vote.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Coal Mine Closures – 16 October 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on coal mine closures, made in an interview on Friday 16th October 1992.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he would scrap the coal mine closure because of opposition].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No-one likes to see closures of this sort and we would not have done it unless we felt it was absolutely unavoidable. There are something like 40 million tons of coal lying at the top of the pit head that nobody wants, there is an extra million tons being added to that each month, the total production of coal is twice as high as we are remotely likely to be able to sell. That is the reality. What we need to do is firstly deal with that problem, painful though it is, and I understand that very well, and then start to put in place measures that will provide permanent jobs and regenerate those areas that at present face difficulties. It is not a decision that could have been delayed forever, it seemed to us to be cleaner, more clear cut and more honest to say frankly what the difficulty was and to seek to deal with it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he knew the dismay about the closures and if he would resign if defeated in the Commons on this].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Who would not be dismayed? Who would actually have wanted to implement closures like this? I certainly would not. Michael Heseltine said earlier this week it was one of the most painful decisions he had ever been connected with, I would echo that. If we could have avoided it we would have avoided it. Right at the very last moment, before the decision was taken, I called the appropriate Ministers together and we had a complete representation of the entire case, whether there was a strategic demand for that coal or likely to be in the future, whether there were marginal pits that could have been saved. We looked again, and again, and again to see if we could change the decision.

  • Presidency Conclusions on the Birmingham European Council – 16 October 1992

    Below is the text of the conclusions of the Presidency on the Birmingham European Council, concluded on 16th October 1992.

    The European Council heard a statement by Mr Klepsch, President of the European Parliament, on the main questions under discussion by the European Council.

    The Maastricht Treaty

    The European Council reviewed progress on ratification of the Treaty on European Union signed on 7 February and reaffirmed the importance of concluding the process as soon as possible, without reopening the present text, on the timing foreseen in Article R of the Treaty. It agreed that the Community must develop together as Twelve, on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty, while respecting, as the Treaty does, the identity and diversity of Member States.

    After a full discussion on bringing the Community closer to its citizens, the European Council agreed the attached Declaration (Annex I). It noted the Danish White Paper and welcomed the Danish Government’s intention to present within the next few weeks ideas on the way forward. It asked Foreign Ministers to examine these ideas and to report on them to the Edinburgh European Council, with a view to agreement there on the framework for a solution. The European Council heard a presentation from the President of the Commission and asked him to elaborate the proposals he had made, and to present a report thereon to the Edinburgh European Council.

    Economic and Monetary Cooperation

    Heads of State or Government agreed that Member States face common economic challenges, and were concerned at lower growth and increasing unemployment. Strong coordination at the Community level will help to ensure that the economy of each Member State is strengthened by the success of other Member States. It is important for Member States to continue policies to reduce inflation; to carry through programmes for controlling budget deficits; and to improve the efficiency of their economies through open market policies. Firm and sustained implementation of these policies establishes the basis for recovery, for social and economic cohesion, and for the creation of the new and lasting jobs that are needed.

    The European Council underlined the importance in this context of reinforcing the convergence process among the Member States’ economies, which is crucial for maintaining monetary stability and for creating the framework for sustainable growth and rising employment. Strict adherence to the principles of sound economic management, as set out in convergence programmes, formulated by Member States so as to fulfil the criteria set out in the Maastricht Treaty in order to realize the movement towards economic and monetary union, would enable the Community to meet its objective of proceeding together in its development. The European Council reiterated too its commitment to the European Monetary System as a key factor of economic stability and prosperity in Europe.

    The European Council endorsed the view of the Economic and Finance Ministers that the recent financial turbulence calls for reflection and analysis in the light of developments in capital markets and in the European and world monetary systems. It invited the Economic and Finance Ministers, assisted by the Monetary Committee and with the involvement of the Commission, to carry this work forward with the Central Bank Governors. It should cover recent economic and financial developments within Europe and in the major industrialized countries as well as the implications of changes in the general economic and financial environment in recent years, notably the impact of the increasing size and sophistication of financial markets and greater capital liberalization.

    GATT-Uruguay Round (GATT)

    The European Council reaffirms the importance of a fair and successful GATT agreement for strengthening the multilateral trading systems and increasing trade flows. This would give a non-inflationary boost to the world economy and would benefit industrialized and developing countries.

    The European Council heard a report by Vice-President Andriessen on current EC/US talks, indicating that, while gaps remained, real progress had been made. It invited the Commission to work within its existing mandate for an early, comprehensive and balanced GATT agreement by the end of the year, in the interests of the Community and of .the world economy, as well as for an early settlement on oilseeds.

    Yugoslavia and Somalia

    The European Council adopted the declarations in Annexes II and III of this document.

     

    Annex I – Birmingham Declaration – A Community close to its citizens

    1. We reaffirm our commitment to the Maastricht Treaty: we need to ratify it to make progress towards European Union if the Community is to remain an anchor of stability and prosperity in a rapidly changing continent, building on its success over the last quarter of a century.
    2. As a community of democracies, we can only move forward with the support of our citizens. We are determined to respond to the concerns raised in the recent public debate. We must:

    – demonstrate to our citizens the benefits of the Community and the Maastricht Treaty;

    – make the Community more open, to ensure a better informed public debate on its activities;

    – respect the history, culture and traditions of individual nations, with a clearer understanding of what Member States should do and what needs to be done by the Community;

    – make clear that citizenship of the Union brings our citizens additional rights and protection without in any way taking the place of their national citizenship.

    1. Foreign Ministers will suggest ways, before the Edinburgh European Council, of opening up the work of the Community’s institutions, including the possibility of some open Council discussion – for example on future work programmes. We welcome the Commission’s offer to consult more widely before proposing legislation, which could include consultation with all the Member States and a more systematic use of consultation documents (Green Papers). We ask the Commission to complete by early next year its work on improving public access to the information available to it and to other Community institutions. We want Community legislation to become simpler and clearer.
    2. We stress, the European Parliament’s important role in the democratic life of the Community and we welcome the growing contacts between national parliaments and the European Parliament. We reaffirm that national parliaments should be more closely involved in the Community’s activities. We shall discuss this with our parliaments. We welcome the Commission’s readiness to respond positively to requests from national parliaments for explanations of its proposals. We underline the importance we attach to the Conference of Parliaments and to the Committee of the Regions.
    3. We reaffirm that decisions must be taken as closely as possible to the citizen. Greater unity can be achieved without excessive centralization. It is for each Member State to decide how its powers should be exercised domestically. The Community can only act where Member States have given it the power to do so in the treaties. Action at the Community level should happen only when proper and necessary: the Maastricht Treaty provides the right framework and objectives for this. Bringing to life this principle – “subsidiarity”, or “nearness” – is essential if the Community is to develop with the support of its citizens. We look forward to decisions at Edinburgh on the basis of reports on:

    – adapting the Council’s procedures and practices – as the Commission for its part has already done – so that the principle becomes an integral part of the Community’s decision-making, as the Maastricht Treaty requires;

    – guidelines for applying the principle in practice, for instance by using the lightest possible form of legislation, with maximum freedom for Member States on how best to achieve the objective in question. Community legislation must be implemented and enforced effectively, and without interfering unnecessarily in the daily life of our citizens;

    We shall also have a look at the first fruits of the Commission’s review of past Community legislation with examples.

    1. Making the principle of subsidiarity work should be a priority for all the Community institutions, without affecting the balance between them. We will seek an agreement about this with the European Parliament.
    2. The Maastricht Treaty will bring direct benefits to individual citizens. All of us – Council, Commission and Parliament – must do more to make this clear.
    3. The European Council, in conformity with the responsibilities given to it by the Treaty, will ensure that the fundamental principles of the European Union will be fully observed.

    Annex II – Declaration on former Yugoslavia

    The European Council agreed that immediate and decisive action was needed in the face of the impending major human tragedy in former Yugoslavia as winter approached. It underlined the importance of providing winter shelter and zones of safety for refugees, and of ensuring the delivery of relief supplies, as highlighted in the Commission’s action plan. It decided that:

    – the Community will speed up EC assistance, for which ECU 213 million is ready for immediate disbursement, including on 120 000 tons of foodstuffs, and on medicines, shelter and 40 trucks;

    – Member States will immediately provide further staff and resources, practical and financial, to strengthen UNHCR’s capacity;

    – the Community and its Member States will immediately establish a task force to support the efforts of the UNHCR to deliver humanitarian aid to the former Yugoslav republics;

    – in order to increase the effectiveness of such humanitarian assistance, the European Council called on the UNHCR to set up:

    – next week, a meeting of technical experts on emergency aid to ensure the practical provision of immediate assistance;

    – next month, a stocktaking conference, to assess the effectiveness of the operation, and recommend further measures.

    Each member of the European Council will appoint a personal representative to supervise this work.

    The European Council called on other international donors to make a commensurate effort to support the UNHCR appeal and to speed up the delivery of assistance under existing pledges.

    The European Council condemned the continuing widespread violence and cruelty and the savage breaches of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia which have caused this human suffering and are now the main constraint on the delivery of essential aid. It noted the unacceptable fact that commitments made at the London Conference had not been put into effect. The European Council expressed its full support for the unremitting efforts of Lord Owen and Mr Vance to bring about an end to hostilities and a peaceful settlement and to secure the implementation of the agreements already reached.

    The European Council strongly endorsed the recent UN Security Council resolutions on the Prevlaka Peninsula, war crimes and a no-fly zone. It underlined the importance of the rapid deployment of forces now under way under Unprofor II, to which a number of Member States were contributing, for humanitarian convoy protection and the escort of detainees from camps. It reaffirmed that sanctions measures and the arms embargo should be maintained.

    The European Council discussed the dangerous situation in Kosovo and urged all parties concerned to exercise restraint and negotiate constructively in the current discussions. It endorsed the work of the International Conference and the long-term CSCE mission of Ambassador Boegh.

    In the light of the deteriorating economic situation in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, the European Council stressed the need for appropriate measures to prevent this republic from bearing the unintended consequences of UN sanctions.

    The European Council noted the recent undertaking by the Bosnian Serbs to remove their military aircraft into Serbia and agreed that in case of violations of UN Security Council Resolution 781 the Security Council should be asked to consider urgently the further measures necessary to enforce the ban on military flights.

    Annex III – Declaration on Somalia

    The European Council expressed its deep concern over the appalling situation in Somalia and the continuing deaths and starvation. It condemned the renewed fighting and called on the parties involved to observe an immediate ceasefire to allow the rapid distribution of aid to the people in desperate need.

    It expressed its full support for the efforts of Ambassador Sahnoun on behalf of the United Nations to achieve a national reconciliation as the basis for a peaceful solution, and for the Belgian contribution to the UN force. It welcomed the outcome of the UN Conference in Geneva on 12 and 13 October, and the creation of a 100-day programme to deliver aid to the worst affected areas. The European Council notes the contribution being provided by the Community and its Member States to relieve the crisis: in addition to other aid, over 100 000 tonnes of food aid has already been delivered and a similar quantity is being sent. Member States are also contributing some ECU 100 million bilaterally.

    The European Council called for the rapid deployment of UN troops to the areas where they are needed. It asked the Presidency to consult the UN Secretary-General on ways and means to expedite these deployments.