The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1995

  • Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting : Auckland Communique – 13 November 1995

    Below is the text of the 1995 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting Communique, issued in Auckland on 13th November 1995.

    Introduction

    1. Commonwealth Heads of Government met in Auckland, New Zealand, from 10 – 13 November 1995. Of the 48 countries which attended the Meeting, 33 were represented by Heads of State or Prime Ministers. The Meeting was chaired by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Rt Hon James Bolger.
    2. Heads of Government commenced their deliberations with a message of felicitations to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Head of the Commonwealth.
    3. Heads of Government noted with particular pleasure the return of South Africa to the Commonwealth in June 1994 and accorded a special welcome to President Nelson Mandela. They welcomed Cameroon, represented by President Paul Biya, as the Commonwealth’s 52nd member.
    4. Heads of Government expressed their deep appreciation for the warm welcome and hospitality accorded to them in New Zealand, for the excellent organisational arrangements made for the Meeting and for the outstanding manner in which the Chairman had guided the deliberations.

    Global Review

    1. Heads of Government reaffirmed their commitment to the fundamental values set out in their Harare Commonwealth Declaration of 1991. They stressed that democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms were interdependent and mutually reinforcing. They requested the Secretariat to assist member governments to promote greater awareness, education and training in human rights and to continue to support governmental efforts for the promotion of democracy, good governance, sustainable development, alleviation of poverty and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, in an integrated and mutually reinforcing manner.
    2. Heads of Government reaffirmed that women’s rights were human rights and urged member governments to adopt legislation and develop national strategies to promote the advancement of women in accordance with the strategic objectives, actions and priorities adopted by the UN Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing. In particular, they endorsed the Commonwealth Plan of Action on Gender and Development and encouraged governments to implement its recommendations. They also urged ratification and implementation of the human rights covenants and other international human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
    3. Heads of Government reiterated their commitment to pay special attention to the rights and needs of children and to the importance of protecting and promoting their rights and needs. They called on all states to ratify and implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
    4. Heads of Government expressed satisfaction at the transitions from military or one party rule to representative forms of government which several member states had successfully achieved in recent years and urged that member countries, the Secretariat, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other relevant Commonwealth organisations should continue to extend all possible support to these countries to consolidate and strengthen democratic processes and institutions.
    5. Heads of Government adopted the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme on the Harare Declaration.
    6. In response to developments in Nigeria which constituted a serious violation of the principles set out in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration, Heads of Government, with the exception of The Gambia, agreed to suspend Nigeria from membership of the Commonwealth pending the return to compliance with the principles of the Harare Declaration. They urged the Nigerian Government to take immediate and concrete steps to adhere to these principles, and offered whatever practical assistance the Government might request in this respect. They called for the release of the 43 prisoners currently being held for involvement in an alleged coup attempt and the release of Chief Abiola. They further decided that if no demonstrable progress was made towards the fulfilment of these conditions within a time frame to be stipulated, Nigeria would be expelled from the association.
    7. Heads of Government welcomed the reaffirmation of the programme of transition to democracy in Sierra Leone and the fact that elections were to be held in the country early in 1996. In this context, they underscored the importance of peace and reconciliation to this process and noted with satisfaction the assistance which the Commonwealth, bilaterally and multilaterally, was providing in this regard.
    8. Heads of Government noted the affirmation by the Government of The Gambia of its plan to hold national elections by July 1996 and offered Commonwealth assistance in the implementation of the transition programme drawn up by the Gambian authorities in order to facilitate a successful restoration of democracy.
    9. Heads of Government attached special importance to the fact that their Meeting was being held in the 50th anniversary year of the United Nations and recalled that many of them had participated in the Special Commemorative Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly and subscribed to the Declaration adopted by it. They reaffirmed their support for the United Nations as a vital instrument of multilateral co operation and as the primary forum responsible for the maintenance of peace, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the promotion of development, equality and justice. While acknowledging the organisation’s accomplishments over the first 50 years, they reaffirmed their conviction that only complete commitment to the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter could ensure the effectiveness of the organisation.
    10. Heads of Government agreed that it was essential that the United Nations be reformed and revitalised. They underscored the need to improve the efficiency of the organisation by ensuring a clearer and complementary role for all UN organs, bodies and agencies, reducing duplication and waste and encouraging better management, transparency and accountability. They agreed that work on the revitalisation of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council should continue and noted the current examination by the General Assembly of the role of the Trusteeship Council. They welcomed the call in the 50th Anniversary Declaration for reform and expansion of the Security Council and called for further in depth consideration by member states of the United Nations, in order to resolve the key issues on which important differences remain.
    11. Heads of Government considered that the United Nations financial crisis required urgent attention and urged all member states of the United Nations to meet their obligations in full and on time, and without conditions.
    12. Heads of Government agreed that the Commonwealth should continue to support and complement the work of the United Nations. The Commonwealth’s strengths were particularly relevant in a world increasingly characterised by intra state instability and strife stemming from such divisive forces as ethnic and religious intolerance. They commended, in this context, the efforts of the Commonwealth Secretary General to foster peace and stability in Commonwealth member countries, at the request of governments concerned, through use of good offices and the promotion of sustainable development and fundamental political values. They recognised the Commonwealth’s capacity for conflict prevention and resolution and welcomed the recommendations made in the Report of the Intergovernmental Group on the Emergence of a Global Humanitarian Order, entitled Towards a More Humane World. They requested the Secretary General to take follow up measures as appropriate, in consultation with member governments.
    13. Heads of Government noted that changes in international circumstances and changing world opinion had provided an impetus for further practical measures to enhance global stability. They expressed their support for arms control, disarmament and non proliferation at the global and regional levels.
    14. Heads of Government emphasised the importance of the determined pursuit by the nuclear weapon states of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons, and by all states of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. They noted that these were among the commitments reaffirmed by the states party to the Non Proliferation Treaty, which was extended indefinitely at the 1995 Review and Extension Conference.
    15. Heads of Government expressed concern at the threat to security posed by other weapons of mass destruction as well as the build up of conventional weapons beyond the legitimate requirements of self defence. They urged ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention at the earliest possible date to enable it to enter into force without delay. They reiterated their call for the strengthening of the provisions of the Biological Weapons Convention. Heads of Government called for greater attention to be paid to the problem of the indiscriminate use of anti personnel landmines and encouraged states party to the Inhumane Weapons Convention to work constructively towards reaching agreed controls on these weapons.
    16. Heads of Government welcomed the decision by Britain, France and the United States of America to sign the Protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga establishing the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. They also welcomed the adoption by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) of the Pelindaba Treaty on the establishment of an African Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. They expressed the hope that the nuclear weapon states would be able to accede to the relevant Protocols to the Treaty to ensure its success. They noted with satisfaction the advances made by member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) towards the establishment of a nuclear weapon free zone in South East Asia. They also expressed support for the establishment of other nuclear free zones based upon arrangements freely arrived at by all the states in the region concerned.
    17. Heads of Government noted the widespread anger caused by the current programmes of nuclear weapon tests. The overwhelming majority of Heads of Government condemned this continued nuclear testing which was inconsistent with the undertaking given by the nuclear weapon states to exercise utmost restraint so as not to affect the ongoing negotiations for the conclusion of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. These Heads of Government urged the immediate cessation of such testing.
    18. Heads of Government emphasised the urgency of completing the negotiations for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. They stressed the importance they attached to a treaty banning any nuclear weapon test explosion and any other nuclear explosion. They considered the conclusion of this agreement to be of the highest importance for the international community as a major step towards strengthening the nuclear non proliferation regime and efforts for global nuclear disarmament, with the ultimate goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons.
    19. Recalling their Cyprus Communiqué, Heads of Government once again expressed support for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus. They urged the Security Council to take resolute action and the necessary measures for the speedy implementation of all United Nations resolutions on Cyprus, in particular Security Council Resolutions 365 (1974), 550 (1984) and 939 (1994). They expressed full support for the proposal by the President of Cyprus for the demilitarisation of Cyprus. They called for the speedy withdrawal of all Turkish forces and settlers from the Republic of Cyprus, the return of the refugees to their homes in conditions of safety, restoration of and respect for the human rights of all Cypriots, and the accounting of all missing persons, and expressed grave concern at the continuing influx of settlers. Expressing deep disappointment at the continued lack of progress in achieving a solution, due to the lack of political will on the Turkish Cypriot side, they reaffirmed support for the United Nations Secretary General’s efforts to find a just and workable solution. In this context they agreed that the Commonwealth Action Group on Cyprus should continue to monitor developments and facilitate the United Nations Secretary General’s efforts as appropriate.
    20. Heads of Government reaffirmed their strong support for the security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Belize, encouraging continued expressions of individual and collective solidarity with Belize. They noted with satisfaction the consultations occurring between Guatemala and Belize with respect to the implementation of confidence building measures, and encouraged both parties to continue and successfully conclude their dialogue. Heads of Government reiterated the request to the Secretary General to convene the Commonwealth Ministerial Committee on Belize whenever necessary.
    21. Heads of Government warmly recalled Hong Kong’s long and close links with the Commonwealth, acknowledging the importance of the territory to the economic vitality of the Asia Pacific region and to world prosperity. They expressed confidence that Hong Kong’s success would continue beyond the change of sovereignty in 1997, in accordance with the Sino British Joint Declaration which provides, inter alia, for the rule of law and a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong. In this context, they hoped to see during the transition intensified Sino British co operation in the interests of Hong Kong.
    22. Heads of Government strongly condemned the aggression against the Republic of Bosnia Herzegovina and the commission of ethnic cleansing, mass murder, aggression, rape and other gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law. They expressed the hope that the peace talks currently under way in Dayton, USA, would result in bringing an early end to the sufferings experienced in recent years by the people in the Balkans. They called on all the parties to negotiate the prevention of a return to hostilities, including in Eastern Slavonia in Croatia. They emphasised the need for a just, equitable and comprehensive political settlement for Bosnia Herzegovina which provides for free, fair and democratic elections and which ensures its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and the status of Sarajevo as a single, undivided city under the Government of Bosnia Herzegovina. They also stressed the importance of international assistance in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the country and that, pending the settlement of the conflict, the Republic of Bosnia Herzegovina should have the inherent right of self defence. The international community should ensure the follow up to the work of the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague.
    23. Heads of Government condemned the tragic assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel. They expressed the hope that this would not adversely affect the peace process in the Middle East, which had their full support.
    24. Heads of Government noted the determination of the Mediterranean countries to pursue initiatives and to adopt effective measures to strengthen security and co operation in the region, and considered that the Euro Mediterranean Conference to be held in Barcelona in November 1995 would make a significant contribution in this regard.
    25. Heads of Government reaffirmed their strongest condemnation of acts of terrorism in all forms, including the taking of hostages, as aimed at the destruction of human rights, and as one of the most dangerous and pernicious threats which destabilise the political, economic and social order of sovereign states. They reiterated their determination to combat terrorism, whether perpetrated by individuals, groups or states, by every means possible, including the development of a comprehensive legal framework of conventions.
    26. Heads of Government were encouraged by the strong performance of much of the world economy in recent years but recognised that this improved performance was not shared by several least developed countries and particularly small states, which are vulnerable to natural disasters and external shocks. They stressed the importance of persisting with sound macro economic and structural policies to sustain the momentum of growth with social justice.
    27. Heads of Government expressed the hope that he expansion of world trade will continue to flow from the full implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreements. They acknowledged the need to take account of the fact that some Commonwealth countries, especially the net food importing countries and those benefiting from preferential access to industrial country markets, face transitional problems in adjusting to the new global trade regime and may need assistance to meet these challenges. Heads of Government emphasised the need to ensure that new forms of protectionism are not introduced in the guise, inter alia, of environmental and labour standards.
    28. Heads of Government endorsed the conclusions on debt reached by Commonwealth Finance Ministers at their 1995 meeting in Jamaica. In particular, they welcomed the agreement last year on the Naples terms for official bilateral debt and called on Paris Club members to implement them fully. They also called for full implementation of the Trinidad proposals, including 80 per cent relief for the most needy.
    29. Heads of Government welcomed the multilateral debt initiative proposed by the British Government at the 1994 Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting in Malta and elaborated at the 1995 meeting in Jamaica. In the light of this initiative, they called on the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to develop constructive proposals for addressing the multilateral debt problem in a comprehensive way, making full use of their available resources to finance a solution. They recognised that any proposal for financing debt reduction should take account of the need to avoid adverse implications for countries which have continued to service their debt regularly. Heads of Government considered that the Commonwealth could make a significant contribution to the debate on debt, both between debtor and creditor countries and within the international financial institutions themselves. They also recognised the concerns expressed by some heavily indebted lower middle income countries.
    30. Heads of Government expressed concern at the erosion of support in some countries for official development assistance and urged donors to use their best endeavours to secure substantial flows of funds, bearing in mind the special needs of the least developed countries and small island states, and to improve the quality of their assistance. They called for IDA 10 pledges to be honoured in full and for IDA 11 to take account of new claimants and expanded development agenda.
    31. Heads of Government endorsed the launching of the Commonwealth Private Investment Initiative (CPII) as a commercial venture to mobilise capital for long term investments in expanding privatised or privatising companies and in small and medium sized private sector business, initially in Africa. They encouraged interested investment agencies and institutions in Commonwealth countries to invest in CPII. They considered that the Initiative should be extended at the earliest opportunity to other regions within the Commonwealth.
    32. Heads of Government supported the need to continue the examination of reform of the international financial institutions and United Nations development agencies to reduce duplication and enhance their coherence, effectiveness and efficiency. Recognising the need for the Commonwealth to contribute to this process, they asked Commonwealth Finance Ministers to review progress at their next meeting.
    33. Heads of Government took note of the views of the ministerial level Commonwealth Consultative Group on the Environment and encouraged Ministers to continue their periodic reviews of Commonwealth co operation on environmental issues. They agreed that forestry was an area in which the Commonwealth could make a distinctive contribution.
    34. Heads of Government welcomed the signature of the agreement between the President of Guyana and the Commonwealth Secretary General launching the unique Iwokrama Rain Forest Programme in Guyana as the basis of a Commonwealth network for the conservation and development of tropical forests. They looked forward to the early establishment of a donor support group.
    35. Heads of Government endorsed the Special Report by Finance Ministers on money laundering and asked Finance Ministers to review progress on the implementation of the Report’s recommendations and to report to CHOGM in 1997. They also asked Law Ministers to review progress on the implementation of other measures to combat money laundering, and similarly to report to CHOGM. They noted the nefarious links between drug trafficking, commercial crime and money laundering and agreed that strong political commitment and stringent legislative and administrative measures were required for the problem to be effectively tackled.

    Small States

    1. Heads of Government welcomed the Report of the Chairperson of the Commonwealth Ministerial Group on Small States, which met on the eve of CHOGM, covering such issues as sustainable development, the implications of adjusting to the new international trading system, and security concerns. They acknowledged the importance of a forum to address the concerns of small states and noted the priorities identified by small states in these areas and the recommendations contained in the Report and called for follow up action as necessary.

    Commonwealth Functional Cooperation

    1. Heads of Government considered various aspects of Commonwealth functional co operation, which they reaffirmed as crucial to conferring the benefits of membership on member states and, in this context, strongly endorsed the attached Report of the Committee of the Whole. They urged that the Secretariat’s efforts be intensified to establish priorities in these areas, based on the Commonwealth’s comparative advantage.

    Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation

    1. Heads of Government recognised the important role played by the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co operation in supporting the social and economic development of member countries, in the priority areas identified in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration. They recognised the resource constraints facing the CFTC and agreed, within the means of each country, to consider increasing the flow of resources to the Fund.

    Public Service Reform and Good Government

    1. Heads of Government endorsed the Secretary General’s initiative ‘Towards a New Public Administration’ aimed at assisting member countries in their efforts to improve the performance of their public services. They also welcomed the establishment of the Commonwealth Good Government Programme by New Zealand, as well as the Commonwealth Local Government Forum, the Commonwealth Association of Public Administration and Management and the Commonwealth Network on Information Technology.

    Commonwealth Sport

    1. Heads of Government recognised the important role of sport in promoting human resource development. Acknowledging the valuable contribution of the CHOGM Committee on Co operation through Sport, Heads of Government extended the mandate of the Committee for a further four year term.

    Commonwealth Foundation

    1. Heads of Government welcomed the Report of the Commonwealth Foundation and strongly commended the Report of the Second NGO Forum and the document: ‘Non Governmental Organisations: Guidelines for Good Policy and Practice’. They expressed support to the Foundation and urged member governments to take all possible action, including settlement of arrears, to alleviate the difficult financial situation confronting the Foundation.

    Commonwealth of Learning

    1. Heads of Government welcomed the Report of the Board of Governors of the Commonwealth of Learning (COL) and acknowledged the valuable role played by COL. Expressing concern at the financial crisis facing COL, they urged governments to take all possible steps to provide greater resources to the organisation at the earliest opportunity.

    Commonwealth Partnership for Technology Management

    1. Heads of Government welcomed the establishment of the Commonwealth Partnership for Technology Management as an innovative joint venture between governments and the private sector and urged both to contribute to it.

    Membership

    1. Heads of Government requested the Secretary General to establish an intergovernmental group to examine and advise on the criteria for assessing future applications for membership of the Commonwealth. In the meantime, they decided as an exceptional case, to accept the application by Mozambique for membership and therefore to warmly welcome that country as the 53rd member of the association.

    Venue of 1997 Meeting

    1. Heads of Government accepted with great pleasure the offer of the British Government to host their next Meeting in 1997.
    2. Heads of Government thanked the Secretariat for the work it had done since their Cyprus Meeting and, in particular, commended the Secretary General for the leadership he had continued to provide in the affairs of the Commonwealth.

     

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Auckland – 12 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Auckland, on Sunday 12th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a few words at the outset about the last week, since I left the United Kingdom. We have had a series of unexpected and unusual events. What has been a consistent theme through the week has been the number of occasions one has been reminded of the price that people can pay for peace, for democracy and for freedom.

    At the beginning of the week I was in Jerusalem to attend the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin, who was murdered for seeking peace. This morning, Remembrance Sunday, I was at a small War Memorial in Arrowtown, it was a beautiful setting and a really rather lovely occasion, accompanied by both British and New Zealand veterans, the British veterans having travelled with me from the United Kingdom. At those two ceremonies I paid tribute to British and Commonwealth Servicemen who gave their lives for freedom in both the World Wars this century.

    And over the weekend, at the Commonwealth meeting, although we had many other things to discuss, a large part of our discussions were overshadowed by the issue of freedom and human rights and by the judicial murder of 9 people, including Mr Ken Saro-Wiwa. That was murder, callous and brutal. It was a direct challenge to the Commonwealth. It was not to be tolerated. The death sentences were confirmed on the very eve of the Commonwealth meeting. They were carried out in the middle of the meeting, despite pleas for clemency from Jim Bolger, the Chairman of the meeting, from Nelson Mandela, from myself and from many others, pleas addressed to the Nigerian regime, in public and in private, and all set aside and ignored by them. Neither was this a single incident, it followed a long series of abuses against human rights and democracy over many years.

    We have tried quiet diplomacy for some time with the Nigerians, and clearly it hasn’t proved sufficient. I believe the Commonwealth had no choice but to respond swiftly and decisively. It has done so by suspending Nigeria’s membership of the Commonwealth and making its readmission dependent upon a return to civilian democracy and the release of the political prisoners now held in jails there. If Nigeria does not comply, it will be not suspended, but expelled from the Commonwealth.

    I believe this action is merited. And I would go further than that. If the Commonwealth had not risen to this challenge, if it had not decided that it would make living the Harare Principles on good government, then it would have been apparent to people that those principles were not worth the paper they were written on. I think after the last couple of days people know that the Commonwealth are serious about those principles, serious in the short term and serious for the future.

    What we will now consider urgently with our partners is the most effective way of following up these immediate steps. Let me set out some preliminary thoughts for you.

    I think that there should be the widest possible embargo on defence sales to Nigeria. The policy we have in the United Kingdom is already highly restrictive. We shall now bring in an immediate ban, on a national basis, and we shall ask our partners to do the same.

    The Commonwealth has also put in place some permanent machinery for tackling violations of the Harare Principles. We have agreed upon a ladder of measures, of increasing severity, to encourage and persuade governments to return to acceptable behaviour. And those measures can result in suspension or expulsion from the Commonwealth. They are especially designed to tackle military regimes which have overthrown a constitutionally elected government, but of course they will be applicable in other circumstances as well.

    We have also set up a standing body whose job will be to monitor the implementation of the Harare Principles and make recommendations for action whenever that might be necessary.

    Before we had our discussions on Nigeria, we had an afternoon’s discussion on nuclear testing, and on this occasion we failed to reach agreement. I don’t think that was a surprise to anyone. I had spelled out on a number of occasions beforehand the principles upon which the British position rests: firstly, a recognition of our responsibilities as a nuclear weapon state; secondly, a determination to achieve a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996; and thirdly, a refusal to condemn France for the tests that it is carrying out. In the light of that, I was not prepared to endorse, or to stay silent on, a position which contradicts those principles and does nothing to achieve a test-free world.

    I believe that it is a measure of the Commonwealth’s resilience and maturity that after a crisp disagreement amongst friends on nuclear matters we were able rapidly to work together to take decisive action on Nigeria and the Harare Principles.

    So I think the outcome has been a good week for the Commonwealth. It has also been an outstandingly good week for British/New Zealand relations. And I would like to express my thanks to the New Zealand Government for this morning’s exceptional Remembrance Service.

    I will take back, as I think Norma will as well, a very deep impression of a friendly country, a prosperous country, a modern country, a country with very old links with the United Kingdom, but very close links today as well.

    Let me just tell you finally that this morning Commonwealth colleagues accepted my invitation to hold the next Heads of Government Meeting in 1997 in the United Kingdom, and we will take that forward over the weeks and months ahead.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    On the Ken Saro-Wiwa case, do you wish now that you had actually met his son for the image and impression that would have given to Nigeria?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Lynda Chalker actually did meet Mr Saro-Wiwa Junior and he was aware, even before that meeting, of the support that he had from us. If you recall, I set out my position some time ago. I also set out very clearly yesterday morning the action that I thought the Commonwealth ought to take over Nigeria, and I am delighted that the Commonwealth did take that action. But I think we now know that those sentences were confirmed some time ago.

    And I very much regret that the Nigerian government do not seem to have been open to any of the pleas made by myself, by Mr Mandela, by Mr Bolger on behalf of the Commonwealth Conference, and by many others. And what I should say is that we have been making representations to Nigeria over a range of matters, not just over the last 48 hours but over some time.

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds):

    I don’t know whether you can answer this question, having been locked up in Queenstown, but John Bruton, the Irish Prime Minister, has made a speech in which he said the support for the British government for a reasonable compromise on the remaining issues for all-party talks is now needed to move the process forward. Is that something you would favour?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends what is meant by a reasonable compromise. We had a position, before the summit that never was some time ago, that was an extremely good compromise, and it was not the British government that backed away from that compromise, it was the Irish government that did not proceed with that meeting because it came under pressure from Sinn Fein and from other people. So it is very frustrating for John Bruton, and for me, that we have not yet had a summit and that we have not yet been able to provide the conditions for all-party talks. And I know the Irish government have been under very considerable domestic pressure over the fact that they have not been able to make progress on those talks.

    Getting all-party talks is what all of us want. But there is no purpose whatsoever in launching all-party talks until we have a basis that will make sure that there is some chance that those all-party talks are likely to succeed. It is not the Taoiseach’s fault that we are not yet in that position. And neither is it the British government’s fault that we are not yet in that position. The problem, above all, lies with Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein’s complete reluctance to tackle the question, even with an international body, of how their arsenal of weapons and explosives are going to be taken out of commission. And that is important. That is not a semantic point.

    When we keep hearing from Mr McGuinness and Mr Adams that there is a fear of violence returning, I ask: from what source is that violence going to return? It is going to return from the IRA and that is effectively what they are warning. And when they are warning that they might return to violence, it is hardly surprising if other people say: before we will sit down with you in round table talks, we want some evidence that you are not going to return to violence. There is no point in Adams and McGuinness saying to us over months, we are set on peace, if a few days later they start making statements which suggest that unless they get their way, on each and every issue, with conceding nothing themselves, that they will return to violence, it is hardly surprising that the Unionists and others believe that we need to be more certain about what their long-term actions are.

    So I share John Bruton’s frustration that we are not yet ready to move forward to all-party talks, but the blockage to all-party talks is Sinn Fein and their reluctance to address the problem that must be addressed, of ensuring confidence in the community in the north and ensuring that there is going to be no return to violence. And when I hear Martin McGuinness and others warning that violence may return if parties don’t come to the table, he makes precisely the reason why the other parties will not sit down with him because they fear that that is the position that the IRA will take. So the blockage is theirs and no weasel words to the contrary will change that hard reality.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley):

    How many other Commonwealth countries do you see in danger of falling foul of the new disciplinary machinery? And with what the Commonwealth has decided on Nigeria, how worried are you about a backlash on British and European companies with large investments in Nigeria?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Upon the latter point, I cannot say what the reaction of the Nigerians will be. But Nigeria is an important country where there are very substantial human rights abuses. What we are seeking to do is to take action against them to persuade them to return to a proper democratic way of life where there will then be long term advantages both for Nigeria and for the companies trading with them. So I can’t judge what their response will be.

    As far as other countries are concerned, there is no country in exactly the same position as Nigeria or the same situation would have arisen over the weekend and they too would have been suspended. There are some countries about whom there are concerns and the Commonwealth will be seeking to persuade them to move to early elections and back to civilian governments and there was some discussion over that at the weekend. If they don’t then I think the Commonwealth would judge them in the same way, and with the same criteria and for the same reasons that they have acted against Nigeria over the last couple of days. But I don’t think that is imminent. we will look at the countries in difficulties

    [Small section indistinct]

    QUESTION (Simon Walters – The Sun):

    Do you fear that Mr. Bruton’s comments might be taken by some people as bolstering the case put by McGuinness and do you think it was rather inappropriate for Mr. Bruton to make these remarks in London while you are away on Remembrance Sunday of all days?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    John Bruton has worked very hard to try and promote the circumstances where we can move forward to all-party talks and get complete agreement. While I have been here, I haven’t had the chance to read the details of all he had to say. All I can say is that it is usually in character for him to try and find a way forward, not to frustrate a way forward, so I don’t quite know. Perhaps it was frustration that lay behind this particular speech but the important thing is for us to continue to work together and to make sure that the democratic governments and the democratic parties set the right sort of conditions so that we can have all-party talks.

    I have to make this clear: what is not a starter is for people make it clear that they would resort to violence if they don’t get their way in talks and then expect to be admitted to talks on that basis. That isn’t on, it isn’t on for us, can’t be on for the Irish Government, other governments that have an interest, the Unionists or any of the democratic parties. We need evidence of good faith and words suggesting a return to violence hinder the chance of talks, they do not add to them.

    QUESTION (Philip Johnston – The Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, you are returning home to quite a critical time in the political calendar with the budget coming up and the Queen’s Speech. How do you propose over the next year getting out of the position you are in at the moment, 40 points behind in the polls and facing a likely election defeat at the hands of the Labour Party?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like to know which part of the political calendar isn’t critical. I’m open to suggestions as to when it may be. In the 16 years I have been in the House of Commons, I have never found a part of the political calendar that wasn’t critical for one reason or another and the last opinion poll I saw was nothing remotely like the one you just quoted, in fact it was rather half that and rather less than half of that and if one tends to look at what is happening in the local election results, you will see a different picture already beginning to emerge so the opinion polls will begin to change.

    What is substantially the basis of my confidence about the next election is when you look at the really big issues to see whether things are going well or badly. If you look at the economy, for example, I am not sure if any of the distinguished people here this afternoon can recall an occasion when we had inflation so securely under lock and key, interest rates so relatively low, growth at the upper end of the European level, unemployment having been on a downward curve for over two years and growth in the economy fuelled by investment and exports rather than a short-term artificial consumer boom.

    That position is becoming more apparent month after month and I could range over a series of other issues as well. I think in terms of other policies, European policy, there is now a much greater understanding of our policies that were criticised both abroad and at home some time ago and it is becoming apparent to people that the long-term position we have taken is right and not wrong so I am confident. I remain confident about the future position and I always enjoy the run-up to an election period even though it may be a lengthy run-up to an election period. We may well have another 18 months or so before the election but I shall no doubt enjoy every day of it.

    QUESTION (Ian Black):

    On Nigeria, Prime Minister, you talked about the widest possible embargo on defence sales. How will that differ from the existing embargo on defence sales? On punitive measures, there have been quite a lot of calls in the last 24 hours for tougher action against Nigeria including economic sanctions, oil exports and so on and so forth. Are you contemplating anything beyond what you have just referred to?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I said there should be the widest possible embargo. Of course, I was speaking beyond the United Kingdom when I said that. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I went on to say there will be an immediate ban on a national basis. That differs from the present situation, which is highly restrictive but not a complete ban, so that is the extent to which it varies there.

    As far as other matters are concerned, we will look at the options. The High Commissioner has come home and we will have consultations with him over the next few days and make our announcements in due course.

    On the general question, traditionally with things like oil embargoes and trade sanctions, they tend generally to function only under a United Nations mandate when there are threats to international peace and security. The difficulty is that the judgement we have to make on things like that is whether within the Nigerian economy they would cause worse unemployment, worse poverty, worse misery and worse starvation that is already being suffered and those are judgements we would have to make.

    In the long term, what we seek is economic improvement for Nigeria, not economic destruction for Nigeria, not least for the reasons I set out a moment ago about the Nigerian people but at the moment we haven’t had a chance to consider these matters in detail and some of them, such as the one you raised, would need to be considered internationally in any event.

    QUESTION (Chris Buckland):

    Prime Minister, you have spoken about how well you got on with Mr. Bolger and how prosperous New Zealand is. Mr. Bolger’s government is well known for its drastic cuts in the welfare state. Have you learned anything from him on this and are you tempted down this road? Do you think it would be successful?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will tell you what I did learn from Mr. Bolger, very much and it is probably relevant to the question Simon nearly asked but didn’t quite get in! There was a time before the last election when Mr. Bolger seemed a long way behind in the opinion polls and nobody thought he was going to win but he did win and that is a very useful thing for everyone to observe I think. We will look at control of public expenditure and we will make our announcements at the end of this month in the budget speech.

    QUESTION (Nick Wood – The Times):

    Prime Minister, you have been pressed repeatedly, I think, in the last months to rule a single European currency in the next Parliament. Do you see any prospect of you so doing at some point in the run-up to the next election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have set out our position and I have nothing to add to it today.

    QUESTION (Simon Walters – The Sun):

    The point I wanted to make was that you are that far behind – 40 points behind or 20 points behind on your figures – and the arguments that you put of inflation, the economy and other factors have been put for the last one, two, three years.

    The fact is it is having no effect whatsoever. Your deficit in the polls has stayed exactly the same, the election is now getting closer and closer and it is becoming harder and harder to see you overtaking the Labour Party and not least, look at the way that Keating is behaving; Blair is going there for Christmas and they are acting as though they think Tony Blair is Prime Minister in-waiting.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you had had my conversations with Paul Keating, you would have been better informed.

    Let me deal with the question of the opinion polls. When you have two opinion polls within a week that are 23 points apart, I think you might have a certain scepticism about opinion polls. I have very great scepticism about opinion polls and you see that phenomenon occurring to a greater or lesser degree in places all over the world where opinion polls change very rapidly. To take a separate example, if you look at the referendum in Canada, at one stage the people in favour of separation were ahead by double figures within two or three weeks of the campaign, then they were 7 points behind and in the event it was almost a dead heat. That suggests not just in the United Kingdom but in other places as well – I will give you other examples if you wish – opinion polls are becoming an increasingly erratic and unsatisfactory guide and I think that is the case.

    I prefer to look at what has happened in the past, look at what is beginning to happen in the local elections which is beginning to show a marked improvement and also recall what happened in the last General Election where five days before polling day I don’t think there was a single newspaper represented here this afternoon who did not write off our chances of winning the last General Election. We were actually 7 points ahead on polling day. I think there may be one here that thought we would win but most of them didn’t. On the back of that, Simon, you will understand my scepticism over your assertions.

    QUESTION (Simon Walters):

    Is a dead heat the best you will get?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That’s not what I said, Simon. Even you can’t produce that headline out of what I said.

    QUESTION (John Deans – The Daily Mail):

    Prime Minister, will the suspension of Nigeria from the Commonwealth have implications for British immigration or asylum policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will have to look at that. We will have to look at what all the ramifications are but at the moment they are suspended from the Commonwealth, they are not expelled from the Commonwealth. Let me make that point but I will need to look at precisely what the position is. I am not aware that it is likely to have an impact upon individual Nigerians and for this reason: our squabble is not with individual Nigerians, our squabble is with the Government of Nigeria so I think we would look with that in mind at any internal changes in the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION (Evan Black):

    Going back very briefly to the seminar, do you think that the behaviour of Patrick Nicholls asking questions and then asking for shares from the company concerned is helpful to your fight back?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about. I have been in Arrowtown and I am not going to answer it on the basis of your assessment of it, Evan.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley – BBC):

    Prime Minister, you mentioned the row over the French nuclear testing in the Pacific. There was a lot of puzzlement among people here at CHOGM that you played it as toughly as you did afterwards in the sense that Australians and New Zealanders felt that their leaders had been a little bit soft and maybe given away too much to you. Why were you so angry? Were you perhaps just deliberately picking a fight for presentation at home?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought it was grandstanding to be blunt. I was angry because I think they were wrong. It was grandstanding. Britain has been seeking a comprehensive test ban treaty, they have encouraged other people to have a comprehensive test ban treaty but the world is not yet safe enough for the nuclear-weapon states not to have nuclear weapons. If you are going to have nuclear weapons, you need to make sure they are safe.

    Britain is in the position that it doesn’t have to test. France is not in the position that it doesn’t have to test. Am I to say to the President of France: “Throw away your nuclear weapon because you mustn’t test!” and diminish the security of Western Europe? I don’t think I am likely to say that and I also took the view, to be blunt, that there were a large number of people present at the Commonwealth meeting who in case of need would certainly look to Britain for support and help on matters military just as in the past when we needed help they came to our side so I thought there should have been a better understanding of the position.

    I looked at it as a matter of principle. It wasn’t a matter of tactics, it wasn’t a matter of picking a row or any of that nonsense that I read about, it was a matter of principle. It is not yet safe in my judgement for there not to be nuclear weapons. When it is safe, no-one will be more pleased that I am but the happy day hasn’t yet dawned.

    We didn’t need to test, the French did. I think the fact that there is a British deterrent and a French deterrent makes the world safer than it would be without them and if one looks at any of the less stable states who may be near to nuclear weapons or biological weapons or chemical weapons, I think you see the strong reasons why Britain wants to maintain its nuclear weapon and will retain its nuclear weapon until we consider it safe not to.

    What I found very striking in that whole episode was the way in which the British Labour Party jumps around trying to score domestic points that can have only one implication and the implication is that the British nuclear weapon would not be safe if there was a British Labour Government. It is another illustration where the gap between what they say and what they really think is very wide and when what they really think comes out, as it did in their attempts to be difficult on that issue over the last few days, you see that they have not moved nearly as far in policy as they have occasionally with their oratory. There is a great gap between what they think, what they really believe and what they say and that was exposed yet again over this issue.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley – BBC):

    If your scientists came to you tomorrow and said you needed to test, you would test?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My scientists have come to me and told me I don’t need to test so it won’t arise but that wasn’t the happy position that President Chirac was in.

  • Mr Major’s Press Statement on Nuclear Testing – 10 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press statement on nuclear testing, issued on 10th November 1995.

    GOVERNMENT PRESS RELEASE:

    THE UK’S POSITION ON THE COMMONWEALTH AND DISARMAMENT ISSUED ON 10TH NOVEMBER

    The Prime Minister made clear in the Heads of Government Meeting that the United Kingdom could not associate itself with the fifth paragraph of the statement on Disarmament.

    The fifth paragraph reads:

    “Heads of Government noted the widespread anger caused by the current programmes of nuclear weapon tests. The overwhelming majority of Heads of Government condemned this continued nuclear testing which was inconsistent with the undertaking given by the nuclear weapons states to exercise utmost restraint so as not to affect the ongoing negotiations for the conclusion of the CTBT in 1996. These Heads of Government urged the immediate cessation of such testing.”

    In the British Government’s view, this paragraph is both factually inaccurate and seriously misrepresents an important subject.

    The British Government’s position, which the Prime Minister has explained to the Heads of Government Meeting, is that:

    – nuclear deterrence has preserved security and stability over the past half-century.

    – Those who hold responsibility, as acknowledged nuclear powers, for maintaining the deterrent have a duty to ensure the safety and reliability of their weapons.

    – There is a continuing threat of proliferation.

    – Until security can be assured by other means, and the threat of proliferation removed, it is essential to maintain effective nuclear deterrence. The existing nuclear powers should take the decisions necessary to achieve this.

    – Britain, as a nuclear power in the Commonwealth and one of the architects of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, understands public concern about nuclear testing and is actively working for the conclusion in 1996 of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in New Zealand – 10 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Auckland, New Zealand, held on Friday 10th November 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am happy that they acknowledge the other side of the argument but I think what they have got in their statement is factually inaccurate, intellectually inconsistent and unbalanced and I haven’t signed up to that and they know that.

    QUESTION:

    Are you sitting on the fence, Mr Major?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sitting on the fence on the question of nuclear testing. I have made it perfectly clear I think the view that has been expressed by our Commonwealth colleagues is just plain wrong, just plain wrong. That has been my position right the way through and it remains my position now.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Ken Saro-Wiwa – 9 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Ken Saro-Wiwa, made in an interview on 9th November 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Nigeria could stay in the Commonwealth following the trial of Ken Saro-Wiwa].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It was a bad trial, a bad judgement and an unjust sentence and the Commonwealth will make that point very clear to Nigeria when it asks for clemency, but my principal concern at the moment is to save the lives of the people who are presently under threat and we will use all our endeavours to do that. I don’t think going beyond that and uttering threats of what might happen subsequently is a helpful way of securing that primary interest – saving the lives of the people who are at present at risk.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if anyone else could exert pressure on Nigeria].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think a number of countries can exert influence, certainly the leaders of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, President Mugabe of course, President Mandela self-evidently and others will all have a particular role to play and I believe they will play that role.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about whether Nigeria’s actions would just be forgotten about].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, of course not but one needs to remember that the Commonwealth concern about Nigeria and other countries was on our agenda before the sentences on Mr Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues; it isn’t something that has just blown up at a result of that particular trial and those particular sentences, it was on the agenda beforehand and has been for some time so self-evidently we will be looking to see what can be done.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Auckland – 9 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Regent Hotel in Auckland, held on Thursday 9th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prime Minister, Mrs. Clarke, Ladies and Gentlemen:

    Perhaps first I may thank you both for your very warm and very pleasant welcome to Auckland. Norma and I have long wanted to visit New Zealand. As you both said, it is far too long since a British Prime Minister was here and nothing I have seen or heard since I have come is likely to delay my return though of course there are two or three days still to go! [Laughter]

    Some of you may be a touch surprised to hear me say this but I think the timing of this visit is exactly right. There are important issues that we need to discuss and I think we should discuss those issues face to face and not through the distorting prism of long-range soundbites and I believe that the United Kingdom and New Zealand have a longstanding relationship that will enable us to do that.

    Both of our countries have changed quite remarkably in recent years. In both, the economy and the structures of Government have been transformed and in each case our countries have emerged the stronger for it. Inevitably, our relationship has changed, it is now more modern, certainly more equal but that shouldn’t exclude ties of history, of personal friendship and of shared interests.

    Though we won’t always adopt identical positions, the New Zealanders and the British need to understand one another’s viewpoints and it is in that spirit that I wish to say something today about three issues that are in the headlines and which matter: the Middle East, nuclear weapons and Northern Ireland.

    I came here last evening not from London but from Israel and I would like to say just a few words first about Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

    He was a warrior, a man who fought and led in several wars in defence of his country’s interests, but as Israel’s Prime Minister he fought with equal courage for a lasting peace in the Middle East and for that a few days ago he gave his life.

    Whether we are from Britain or from New Zealand, it is in the interests of all of us to see a settled peace between Israel and her Arab neighbours. A peace settlement won’t remove all threats to stability in the Middle East, it will emphatically not resolve the problems posed by Iraq, posed by Iran, posed by Libya or the fragility of Algeria but it will defuse the sharpest issues in the region and allow new relationships to grow.

    In the Mount Herzl cemetery on Monday, leaders from West and East, and most remarkably from a range of Arab nations, shared the grief of the Israeli people. That could never have happened even a few years ago and it showed more powerfully than any words that could be uttered that a stable peace can be achieved if Prime Minister Rabin’s work is carried on, as I passionately believe it will be by his successor.

    I know that here in New Zealand you’d wish to join with me in remembering his life with gratitude and the achievements that he produced towards a lasting peace in the Middle East.

    Let me now turn to another issue of some importance mentioned both by the Prime Minister and by Mrs. Clarke, an issue that arouses strong emotions, the issue of nuclear weapons.

    It is not in the style of New Zealanders and the British to be other than direct and open with one another so let me tackle nuclear testing head on because to judge from some of the comments I have read and heard over recent weeks the British position is not properly understood here in New Zealand so let me set out the position for you.

    We, like you, wish to see a complete end to nuclear testing. We, the British, have no plans to carry out further tests or need to do so. We, like you, want a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We, like you, want to prevent the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and we are working for controls on fissile material and to eliminate chemical and biological weapons.

    We, the British, were one of the architects of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and were instrumental in achieving its indefinite extension earlier last year.

    In all this, I suspect Britain and New Zealand are united but there is a difference between us. Britain is a nuclear power and New Zealand is not. As Prime Minister, I have the ultimate responsibility for the use, the control and the safety of Britain’s nuclear deterrent. I hope and pray that it need never be used but until I am sure of that, sure of that beyond doubt, we will keep the deterrent and keep it in working order.

    Some say the world no longer needs deterrence. I must say I don’t agree with that point of view. Nuclear deterrence gave Europe security and stability. It would in my judgement by irresponsible to discard it before there is a better means of preserving stability to put in its place.

    Let me cite for you the example of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was developing – and might still be planning – nuclear weapons. He developed hideous forms of biological warfare and stockpiled enough biological and chemical weapons to wipe out the world’s population several times over. We cannot ignore such threats; that is one and there are others.

    As a Permanent Member of the Security Council, the United Kingdom is insisting on the full disclosure and elimination of these Iraqi programmes and strict monitoring to ensure compliance. We have at times come under pressure, often rather hard pressure, to soften our stance but we shall not do so. With the evidence that has now come to light, I believe we are right not to soften our stance. It is also right to keep our nuclear capacity and we will do so for as long as we judge it is needed for Britain’s protection and, if necessary, for the protection of our friends around the world.

    France, too, is a nuclear power whose weapons contribute to deterrence in Europe. Unlike Britain, France still needs to conduct some tests before signing a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In this situation, it would have been very easy for me to come here this week and join the chorus of disapproval about French nuclear tests, I have no doubt it would have provided me with some easy plaudits and a very nice, free ride during my visit here to New Zealand. I could have done that. After all, we declared eight years ago that the United Kingdom would abide by the Protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga, we accepted the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone and three weeks ago we announced that we would sign the Protocols in the first half of next year in the company of the United States and France and we, the British, worked for this triple undertaking at the specific request of the Governments of New Zealand and Australia, so I could have taken that free ride had I chosen to do so but I must say to you I am not prepared to do so because if I had, I believe it would have been hypocritical.

    I know the responsibility of being a nuclear power, I understand the difficulties that faced the President of France and I am not prepared to condemn him for discharging those responsibilities and if I had, I must say to you as friend to friend I would have fallen short of the honesty and frankness that New Zealand has a right to expect from the United Kingdom. Upon this issue, to my regret, we must agree to differ.

    Finally, Jim, you mentioned Northern Ireland, a matter very close to my heart and my Government’s policy. You, Prime Minister, are one of many in New Zealand with Irish antecedents.

    Northern Ireland has changed dramatically since Albert Reynolds and I signed the Downing Street Declaration just two years ago. Fourteen months of ceasefire have seen life there returning step by step towards the sort of normality which you in New Zealand can take for granted. As the threat of terrorism has diminished, we have been able to relax the measures necessary to combat it and now, throughout the Province, there are no military patrols, we have relocated large numbers of troops back to their home bases; there has been a surge in the economy, unemployment is dropping, trade and investment are rising and tourism has hit record levels.

    We now want to move forward as soon as possible to negotiations which will embrace all of the parties in Northern Ireland, including those parties previously associated with terrorism. Our aim is a lasting political settlement fair to all parties and fair to both sides of the community.

    Such a settlement can be achieved. With the active partnership of the Irish Government and valuable support from the United States, we have opened the way to a democratic future for all the people of Northern Ireland but there are still many problems to overcome. We still have to overcome the legacy of suspicion and the mindset of violence. Though shooting and bombing have ceased, the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries both retain their arsenals and continue the hideous practice of so-called punishment beatings.

    Let me say this to you today: a democratic society can neither accept muttered warnings by political leaders of a return to paramilitary violence nor the spectacle of thugs smashing teenagers’ legs with baseball bats.

    For the past ten months, through patient negotiation we have been trying to bring Sinn Fein into the democratic arena. Last Friday, we published new proposals for representatives of the paramilitaries to discuss with an international body how their arms and explosives could be taken out of commission while parallel talks took place to prepare for all-party negotiations. I hope that Sinn Fein will respond positively to our proposals. I hope they will catch the tide of peace self-evidently flowing so strongly amongst all the people of Northern Ireland.

    Once the paramilitaries start consigning their weapons to history, they can make a full contribution to Northern Ireland’s democratic life on precisely the same basis as all the other constitutional parties.

    Jim, when you next visit the land of your fathers, I hope you will go once again to Northern Ireland. You will find there an atmosphere transformed out of all recognition even since your last visit just two years ago.

    Let me return finally to where I began. My visit here today is about keeping in touch. For all our family ties, for all our connections in sport and education, in culture and in trade, for all the links which see 100,000 New Zealanders come to Britain each year and even more Britons come to New Zealand, we mustn’t take each other for granted because of those long historic links so I was delighted with your announcement this morning that more young Britons will be allowed to come here as working holiday-makers. We, for our part, are going to mount a special programme of events in 1997 to show young New Zealanders why the link with Britain remains relevant to them in the 1990s.

    You and I, Prime Minister, have worked together in a way that the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and New Zealand have traditionally worked together. We have spoken openly as friends, bluntly from time to time when that was necessary and we have listened to what the other had to say. We have a great deal to learn from each other. I believe that Britain and New Zealand, with that close link that has been there for ever, have both gained from that and will gain from it in the future.

    We have watched from the United Kingdom with interest and admiration the reforms of the public sector that you have undertaken, reforms whose implementation, as we have seen in our own experience in the United Kingdom, can sometimes be very painful but which are now bearing fruit in a revitalised economic performance.

    Whenever you asked me to take up issues on New Zealand’s behalf, I have invariably done so. Equally, let me say to this audience today how much I value your Government’s support over Northern Ireland and your decision to send a contingent to serve with distinction alongside British troops with the United Nations in Bosnia. We shall work just as closely together, I believe, over the next few days to ensure the success of the Commonwealth Meeting under your Chairmanship.

    The Commonwealth, as I have seen on countless occasions, generates a unique spirit and on this occasion it has provided the happy circumstance of bringing Norma and me here today to see you and Joan once again, to enjoy your generous hospitality, to meet friends old and new and to see a country we have always wished to visit. It is a visit we will cherish and we are delighted to be here and most grateful for your hospitality. [Applause].

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 November 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Specialist Advisers

    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister how many (a) specialist advisers and (b) press or public relations officers are employed by his Department; and what is the total annual salary bill for (a) and (b).

    The Prime Minister: I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister how many persons in (a) the Prime Minister’s Office or (b) the Cabinet Office are on the public payroll or employed as consultants or advisers and work on a part-time or full-time basis in relation to the Scott inquiry; if he will list their names; and how much each is paid.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 8 November 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

    The number of officials within the Cabinet Office wholly employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry is five and their direct annual salary cost is approximately £140,000. There are no officials employed on Scott inquiry-related matters within my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s Office on a full-time or part-time basis, although some will inevitably be involved from time to time. There are also no external consultants or advisers employed on such matters by the Prime Minister’s Office or the Cabinet Office. It is not the practice to name staff or external advisers.

    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister how many persons have been authorised to have access to documents held by the Cabinet Office or the Prime Minister’s Office relating to the Scott Inquiry; and if he will list such persons.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 7 November 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

    Ministers, former Ministers, officials and other advisers have access to material relating to the inquiry as necessary in order to carry out their responsibilities.

     

    Committee on Standards in Public Life

    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list where appropriate for each Nolan commissioner his or her most recent public salary.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply. Lord Nolan receives his judicial salary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) receive their parliamentary salaries. They receive no emoluments as members of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Of the remaining seven members of the committee, six were paid an honorarium of £1,000 per month from November 1994 to April 1995 and subsequently an attendance fee of £155 per day and one, who was then in receipt of a salary from public funds, was not. All seven are now entitled to the daily attendance fee.

    Five of the seven have previously held full-time positions paid at public expense. Two members of the committee hold other current part-time appointments paid from public funds. Sir Martin Jacomb is chairman of the British Council, for which he receives an honorarium of £10,250 per year, and Diana Warwick is a lay member of the Employment Appeals Tribunal, for which she is paid an attendance fee of £186 per day.

     

    Sir Gerald Warner

    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what are the specific functions in the Cabinet Office of Sir Gerald Warner; and what are the terms on which he is remunerated.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 7 November 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

    Sir Gerald Warner is employed in the Cabinet Office at grade 2 level as the intelligence co-ordinator. As such, he advises the Secretary of the Cabinet on the co-ordination of the intelligence machinery and its resources and programmes. He chairs various formal and informal groups charged with intelligence management. He has particular responsibility for reviewing the United Kingdom’s intelligence requirements and for advising on the allocation of the resources to enable the intelligence agencies to meet them. He is remunerated within the civil service grade 2 range.

     

    Private Finance Initiative

    Mr. Betts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by type of project (a) how many schemes have been approved to date under the private finance initiative, (b) what is the value of those schemes and (c) what public sector contribution will be required both initially and as revenue support during the lifetime of the schemes.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 7 November 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with New Zealand Prime Minister – 8 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, held in Auckland on Wednesday 8th November 1995. [Jim Bolger was Prime Minister of New Zealand from 2nd November 1990 – 8th December 1997]

    MR BOLGER:

    We do have to be short because I have to go across the road to escort Her Majesty through the building where the conference is going to be held.

    Can I just open these comments by saying that Prime Minister Major and myself have covered both bilateral issues and of course the CHOGM issues.

    On the bilateral front there is a warm reciprocity of views and we have no outstanding issues between us. We have agreed, however, that New Zealand will enhance the opportunity for young Britons to visit New Zealand on working arrangements. Currently that is limited to 500 per annum, we are going to quadruple that to 2,000 per annum, and that is in recognition that young New Zealanders of course can go to Britain on working arrangements with no limit. So it brings some reciprocity but clearly not to the extent that the British offer to New Zealand youngsters that go over there.

    On the issue of CHOGM, there is clearly the nuclear question where there are differences between the Prime Minister and myself, they are well known so I will not reiterate them here this morning. The issue of good government and how that might impact on some of the countries you described as [indistinct] states, that is going to be, I think, the most difficult thing at the conference – how do we respond as a group of 52 nations to assist countries to pursue the ambitions stated in the Harare Declaration. And that is where we will be putting substantial time during the conference.

    So that is what we have been discussing this morning and it has been a good morning.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just add a word or two about that. As the Prime Minister says, there is a very close, very long-standing, very detailed bilateral relationship that I think is in extremely good shape and I am delighted at the Prime Minister’s announcement about extending the Young Persons Scheme this morning. That will be very welcome and I have no doubt that a lot of young British people will be delighted to come and spend a year in New Zealand. I am very pleased that it will be far more than did in the past.

    We have discussed a number of other CHOGM issues this morning. As the Prime Minister says, even amongst the best of friends there are sometimes points of difference and although we share a determination to see a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, we do have one point of difference that is well understood by all of you here, it is a point of difference that between friends can exist and we both acknowledge that point of difference does exist at the moment.

    We also spent some time this morning discussing something else of concern to us both, and that is not just the general question of the Harare Declaration and good government in the Commonwealth, which will certainly be a key part of our discussions over the next couple of days, but I think both of us are very concerned indeed at the confirmation by the Ruling Council in Nigeria of the death sentences on Mr Saro-Wiwa and his associates. It seems to me, and I believe the Prime Minister shares this view, that that was a flawed judicial procedure. The sentences are not just.

    And I now speak for myself – the Prime Minister may wish to add his own thoughts – but I believe the Nigerians should exercise clemency, I very much hope they will exercise clemency, and I would be very surprised indeed if that were not a general view amongst colleagues in the Commonwealth.

    MR BOLGER:

    I am sure it will be a general view of colleagues. The local media here will be aware that I met the young Mr Wiwa yesterday, who asked me to see whether the Commonwealth could express a view to the Nigerian authorities to exercise clemency on behalf of his father and the other 8 who were sentenced with him. And the confirmation overnight that their sentence has been confirmed of course heightens our concern that the authorities in Nigeria may be moving to an early execution. That, we believe, would be quite appalling given that this is a key issue in the Commonwealth and to flout the Commonwealth in that way would certainly send all the wrong signals.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, do you believe that the bilateral relationship between New Zealand and Great Britain has been affected by the nuclear issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In countries that have been friends for a long time there is scope occasionally for disagreements. If there isn’t disagreement between countries then they have no great issues to discuss. Of course there is occasional disagreement. I don’t think that is going to affect the long term relationship between New Zealand and the United Kingdom. There have been many occasions over the past 5 or 10 years when the United Kingdom, on behalf of New Zealand, have taken up matters in the international fora of the world. That will happen again in the future. I think we can stand the occasional disagreement without a great degree of difficulty.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] opposition to the British position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not the British position, I think we ought to get this correct. It is not Britain who are carrying out nuclear tests. Britain does not have to carry out nuclear tests. But we are a nuclear power. France is our next door neighbour. The French President has had clear advice that he should carry out those tests and as their next door neighbour I am not in the business of condemning them. That is the point.

    QUESTION:

    But do you understand that New Zealanders might disagree and might have expected more from Britain as a leading member of the Commonwealth?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course I can understand how other people feel, it is a very emotional issue – nuclear weapons. But we are a nuclear power. We have a very close relationship with New Zealand, we also have a very relationship with France. I understand, perhaps better than non-nuclear powers, the particular problem faced by a nuclear power.

    The President of France has had clear advice, as I understand it, that it is necessary for him to test his weapons. I can understand that since I myself have responsibility for a nuclear weapon. And on that basis I am not in the business of condemning the French. That is the point of difference between us and I have repeatedly said so.

    QUESTION:

    Young people from this country died in your country when your environment was threatened, how can you come here when our environment is threatened and refuse to condemn the French testing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There have been over 2,000 nuclear tests over the last few years. We are a nuclear country, the United Kingdom are a nuclear country. We think that is necessary for deterrence and for security. That security is there for the United Kingdom, it is also there for our friends.

    MR BOLGER:

    We disagree on the issue, we accept we disagree on the issue, we are not seeking at this late moment to persuade each other to a different viewpoint. I think that is where it rests. Naturally Prime Minister Major would prefer that I agreed with him and I strongly would prefer that he agreed with me. But it doesn’t happen that way and that is where it is.

    And turning to Nigeria, obviously this is a key issue for the conference and I will be talking during the course of the day to leading African leaders – President Mugabe, President Mandela and others, Prime Minister Mahatir from Asia, a leading Asian leader at the conference, to see what the conference can do as a collective body to convey its concerns and to offer what assistance we can to get all governments to adhere to the principles set out in the Harare Declaration. That, I believe, is going to be the substantive challenge of this conference.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Keating is heading over this evening and he says he wants to give you a slap on the knuckles. Are you concerned about that, will you be meeting him, do you want to talk with him about nuclear issues?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have known Paul for many years, I have no doubt that we will be meeting during the course of the next few days and I shall look forward to our exchanges.

    MR BOLGER:

    I will meet him tonight.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Auckland (II) – 8 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Auckland on Wednesday 8th November 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, do you feel that your back is now against the wall as far as the nuclear affair is concerned?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t remotely feel as though my back is against the wall on that or any other issue. We know well what the feelings are about nuclear weapons in different parts of the world, the British position is well understood. No-one is in any doubt about my position. I have stated it many times and it hasn’t changed.

    QUESTION:

    Do you have no regrets that it is only you and China that have not condemned the French nuclear testing and don’t you fear that it could give a boost to Republican resentment in Australia and New Zealand?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t have that feeling at all. We have worked very hard for there to be a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. There is, partly as a result of the work that Britain has done, going to be a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty next year. It probably would not have happened without the British influence and other people’s work as well. We are a nuclear weapon country. We don’t have to test, we are not going to test. The French feel that they have to. That is a decision for France, France have made that decision, it is for them to make and I am not about to condemn them for doing so.

    QUESTION:

    Do you have any sympathy at all with the anger that is being expressed on the streets of New Zealand and there will be more anger now that you are here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I am sure you will see that there is. I understand the way people feel about it, but that is a decision that is for France. France has taken that decision. I am not going to join in the general condemnation of that. I have indicated that in the past, I am not proposing to change my mind about that. Taking decisions like that is not an easy decision. I doubt that President Chirac took it willingly or easily. He decided that he felt it necessary that he had to take that decision.

    Well, since I have the ultimate responsibility for the British nuclear deterrent, I can imagine the advice that was put to him. And upon that basis, our position is that we are not going to condemn France. I have said that repeatedly and it remains the position.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to back tougher action against Nigeria if there is not an improved record on human rights? And what will you try to do for Ken Saro-Wiwa?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are concerned about Nigeria. We had some contact with Nigeria recently about the trial that concluded some time ago and we are concerned about the nature of the trial with Mr Saro-Wiwa, and of course the outcome of the trial, and that is certainly a matter that I shall wish to discuss with other Commonwealth Heads over the next few days.

    QUESTION:

    What about action?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are going to discuss that over the weekend. I think it is wise to have the discussion before we reach the conclusion. I have absolutely no doubt that strong feelings will be expressed about that. We will express our own view about it. It will be discussed in the next few days and no doubt, by the conclusion of the meeting, our action will be clear.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Auckland – 8 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Auckland on Wednesday 8th November 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can I ask you what specific action you would like to see CHOGM take in an effort to pressure the Nigerian authorities into clemency?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Firstly, let me say that I think it was a flawed trial and I think it was an unjust verdict and the sentences that have been feared, and sadly, I hear, confirmed, should not be carried out. I will certainly be asking the Nigerians for clemency and I imagine many others will at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference. What action will be taken subsequently I think is a matter we will have to discuss over the next day or so.

    QUESTION:

    Will you seek a specific meeting with the Nigerian representative here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will make sure that they are aware of our view and aware of the fact that we believe clemency should be offered.
    QUESTION:

    Do you think the time is approaching when there should be consideration of suspending Nigeria from the Commonwealth?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the first thing to do is to determine precisely what can be done to help Mr Saro-Wiwa and the other defendants who are at present under sentence of death. I think that is the matter most on my mind at the moment. Subsequent action will have to await and see what happens as a result of our appeals for clemency.

    QUESTION:

    Does not their action though deserve pariah status, as Mr Saro-Wiwa’s son suggests?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Mr Saro-Wiwa’s son is performing magnificently on behalf of his father. I don’t think that he can do much more than he is and he has my support in what he is doing. But for the moment I don’t think it is helpful to anyone other than to concentrate on making sure these sentences are not carried out.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think there is a particular onus on black African leaders to attempt to exert influence on Nigeria in this situation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not had the chance of meeting my fellow Commonwealth leaders from Africa yet in this conference. But I would be very surprised if they did not share my views.

    QUESTION:

    In particular Mr Mandela perhaps?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Mandela will speak for himself. But I would think most of our colleagues from Africa will share exactly the views I have just expressed.