The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Boris Yeltsin

  • Mr Major’s Public Message to President Yeltsin – 22 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s public message to President Yeltsin, issued on 22nd September 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I heard of the latest developments in Russia soon after my arrival in Kuala Lumpur, and have been following events as closely as I can from here. I am sorry that, because of my programme here, I have not so far had a chance to speak to you on the telephone.

    When we met in Tokyo two months ago, you explained your intention to bring in a new, democratic constitution following the strong backing you received in the April referendum. In calling for elections this December to a new Parliament, you are giving them the chance to have their views properly represented. This is what they voted for in the April referendum. This deserves the backing of democrats, both inside the outside Russia. I would like to assure you of our full support for your determined and courageous efforts, in the face of great difficulties, to surmount the challenges to your reform programme, and to create a democratic framework for Russia and the Russian people.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Kuala Lumpur – 22 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Kuala Lumpur, held on Wednesday 22nd September 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted that Jim Prior is here – he is the leader of an extremely high-powered business delegation here with me in Kuala Lumpur – and also that I have Richard Needham, the Minister for Trade, with me. Richard has worked long and hard to make sure that we are able to increase our exports and our trading relationship with Asia and he will be returning to Malaysia with a large business delegation in November to follow up the numerous openings that have been identified in various meetings today.

    I think there is no doubt that the trip has proved very fruitful with the signing this afternoon of five very important agreements. These involve potentially hundreds of millions of pounds of business for the United Kingdom. Overall at the moment business currently under discussion is worth at least a billion pounds over the forthcoming years and our current and continuing exports to Malaysia are estimated to support around 25,000 jobs. Today’s contracts of course should secure many more jobs in Britain in due course.

    I think it is worth remembering that South East Asia is one of the most rapidly-growing economies in the world and Malaysia, as a result of policies over many years, is in the forefront of that growth. We have doubled our exports to Malaysia over the last four years but I think we can and will do a good deal better.

    It is equally true to make the point that the trading relationship has expanded in the other direction with a very substantial growth of Malaysian exports to the United Kingdom.

    Within the Community, we will continue to fight very hard indeed for the vision that we have of a free, open, outward-looking Community and the relevance of that is that it will ensure that countries like Malaysia will have access to the Single Market which is worth around £350 billion even before enlargement.

    To perhaps give you a practical example in concrete terms, the Community provides a massive market for Malaysian products like the Proton car that I was able to have a look at this morning.

    I also had the opportunity of looking at the Connaught Bridge power station, a very impressive example of Rolls-Royce’s capabilities. Today, British Gas have signed an agreement for a joint venture for an even bigger power plant and the project overall is worth around £550 million. What staggered me was that the plant is expected to start producing power by the end of 1994 and that is very remarkable progress indeed – no wonder British Gas refer to it as “Project Maserati”.

    Our pursuit of business, of course, and our wider social and educational links inevitably go hand-in-hand. There are at the moment around 13,000 Malaysians studying in the United Kingdom and possibly a good deal more who have gone there privately where we don’t necessarily have an indication of the numbers. John Laings are planning to increase the number of students we can help by establishing a college of the University of London here in Kuala Lumpur and Laings are also about to construct twelve hospitals here so there is a substantial amount of work there as well.

    As we approach the end of my trip to Tokyo and Malaysia, I am absolutely certain that we were right in our decision to give greater priority to our policies relating to the Asia Pacific region. I think this trip alone demonstrates what that means in practice and what more can be achieved in the future.

    It was equally clear from my discussions this afternoon that there is a very wide range of international and bilateral issues that are of concern to both countries. In my discussions with Dr. Mahathir this afternoon, we spread very broadly our discussions and it was remarkable that we had so many areas of joint concern and interest. The primary purpose, however, of this meeting was to expand and make clear to everyone the sheer scale of the economic and trading relationship that exists between the United Kingdom and Malaysia and I will, if I may, ask Lord Prior, as leader of the business delegation, just to give his impressions of the trip and then we will be happy to take any questions you may have.

    LORD PRIOR:

    As most members of the British press will know, I am not given to sycophancy in my remarks about prime ministers but I would just like to say that I believe that the efforts made by the Prime Minister both here in Malaysia and in Japan as well and in a number of other places are an enormous help and example to British industry and I think you will find that all the industrialists who have been on both these really quite difficult tours are full of praise for the attitude of the Prime Minister and welcome enormously the efforts he, Richard Needham and others are making for British industry.

    The Prime Minister has mentioned a number of important projects and he has been, quite rightly, very conservative in the figures he has put on them. If I can just add a little to, for example, the airport, it is a British consortium which has been given the task of organising and carrying through this massive project which is a real prestige project in south-east Asia; it is the biggest single project which Malaysia has ever undertaken and which we hope will be a great credit to a nation which has made such marvellous progress in the last few years. That project, which will be carried out predominantly with Malaysian contractors and Malaysian labour but at the same time with project management and technical help from both British and Japan, will bring to Britain a large quantity of work, for example to my own company GEC Marconi it will bring at least 100 million pounds and probably more and the figure for Balfour Beatty and Trafalgar House Gannon [phonetic] will probably be in excess of something like £500 million so that alone is a very big project.

    The Prime Minister has already mentioned the two power station projects, one of which he opened this morning. Sir Desmond Pitcher of the North West Water. Board has a project that he would like to mention to you a little later on which again is a very big project and he has a press kit to hand out for those who would wish to have it.

    So altogether, Prime Minister, we think this has been a very successful tour from your point of view. You have opened a number of doors for us and it is up to British industry now to get their feet in so that they don’t close again and manage to get some very big orders. We think we will.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will ask Sir Desmond Pitcher to take up Jim’s invitation and perhaps say a word on some other events that have occurred today.

    SIR DESMOND PITCHER:

    We formed a consortium with our Malaysian partners a few years ago to study the sewage problems in this country. We made a recommendation to the Government for a national sewage programme to provide sewage for 14 million people, which is roughly double the number of people who live in the north west of England. As a consequence of that, the Malaysian government this year have passed a special act to privatise all sewage activity and transfer responsibility of that to our company. We are in the final details of signing the so-called “Consortium Agreement” as a franchise agreement and we have to make a privatisation agreement. In effect, the capital investment for starters is 1.25 billion pounds. We have the contract for 28 years and by the time we have done the main construction work, we will have changed the whole dimension of sewage and environment in this country. We have done it of course with tremendous help from our Malaysian colleagues and more particularly all the money is coming from Malaysia with a small amount of investment in equity from our country.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Mike Webster, ITN):

    Prime Minister, if I could first ask you a question on the international stage, today President Clinton, like yourself, has given support to President Yeltsin in Russia. However, he added a proviso that he didn’t want to see President Yeltsin use force in order to put down his opponents. Do you make the same condition, despite your support for him, that he must keep the troops….

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are several points to be made. Yeltsin is the first, indeed the only leader in Russian history to be elected freely. He is carrying forward a reform process, he wants a properly elected parliament that actually can express the will of the people with clarity and with a fresh mandate.

    Since President Gorbachev gave them the chance some time ago, the Russian people have consistently acted to show that they believe in the reform programme; that is the reform programme that President Yeltsin is trying to carry forward.

    We have given consistent support to the reformers. At the time of the 1991 coup, it was Britain that denounced it first and made it clear we were on the side of reform. We have made it absolutely clear right the way through that we are on the side of the reform process and the reformers will need to operate by rule of law and with parliamentary sanction so I think it is our view that we want it to proceed peaceably but let there be no doubt whatsoever that the reform process is best likely to go ahead under President Yeltsin, that he has our support and we very much hope that that will be acknowledged by people throughout Russia and the process can continue.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC):

    But how likely do you think it is that President Yeltsin will be overthrown and that Russia will revert to totalitarian rule?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Consistently in the last few years the Russian people, when asked, have acted with very considerable maturity. I don’t think there is any conceivable doubt that given the chance they will continue to act with maturity and that does mean a democratic reform process so I both hope and believe that President Yeltsin will continue and will be able to carry that reform process forward.

    I not only believe that that is very much in the interest of the Russian people; I don’t have a shred of doubt that it is very much in the interest of the rest of the world to have a stable Russia settling down as a secure democracy not just for months but for years ahead, decades ahead. That is what all of us wish to see. I believe it is achievable but I believe now is the moment for the rest of the world to make it absolutely clear that they support the continuation of this reform process and they do not support any attempts illegally to knock it off course.

    QUESTION (Richard Bestick, Sky News):

    From your remarks at lunch-time today about the rearguard Soviets, it would seem that if Mr. Yeltsin isn’t successful you would be prepared to see a return to the Cold War rather than accept a dialogue with his successors.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I have made it clear in the past, if I may refer back to the remarks I made about the potential coup some time. Britain didn’t sit back and consider what might happen if things went wrong; we were out there first making it clear that the reform process had to continue. That is the first prize for the rest of the world. Nobody should be in any doubt about that. It is clearly our policy that it is in everybody’s interests – Britain’s, the rest of the world’s, Russia’s – for there to be the maximum amount of support for those people who will carry on the reform process and I will rest my answer on that.

    QUESTION:

    When Lady Thatcher was here about two weeks ago, she said that the situations in Iraq and in Bosnia should be treated exactly in the same manner. How does your Administration see the difference between the two situations and should they be treated differently by your Administration?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I didn’t hear what may have been said on that occasion and I am not going to comment directly on remarks I didn’t myself hear and haven’t seen in context. I think I have learned over the last ten years or so that it is very unwise to do that.

    As far as Iraq is concerned, I think the whole world remains appalled at the behaviour of Saddam Hussein. Both in the north with the Kurds and in the south in the marshlands, his attitude continues to be repressive, dictatorial and wholly repugnant to the rest of the world.

    Insofar as the UNSCOM investigations are concerned, until and unless he actually removes these weapons of mass destruction, he cannot expect in any way the sanctions to be removed so our position on that has been perfectly clear.

    On Bosnia, I think it is right for me to say that everyone shares very hot feelings – very emotional feelings – about the dreadful circumstances that have arisen in Bosnia. We were the first country to put in troops on a large scale to help the humanitarian aid. It is certainly the view of the United Nations that without the British effort it could not have continued and many thousands of lives would have been lost. We have continued to do that. We have continued to seek a peaceful process. We believe a peaceful political settlement is desirable because it is more likely to be enduring and I think that is the prize everyone wishes to seek so in Iraq we sought peace, in Bosnia we seek peace but we have to determine the way to achieve it dependent upon the individual circumstances.

    QUESTION (Philip Johnstone, Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, later today you are off to Monte Carlo to bang the drum on behalf of Manchester. How confident are you that the city can win the Olympics for the year 2000 and do you think China’s human rights record disqualifies Peking from holding the Games?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have always been concerned throughout the whole of this to promote the aims of Manchester rather than comment on the aims of other countries. I think Manchester’s bid is technically excellent. Manchester has the total support of the Government. I believe that were the Games to come to Manchester in the year 2000 they would be memorable Games matched against any we have seen in the past so I have no doubt about Manchester’s willingness or capability of producing the Games.

    As to whether they will win or not, we are now within a few hours of the 90-odd members actually making up their minds. I don’t know what individual motivations they will have in that decision. I can only say that on merit I think Manchester will be very hard to beat and I would be delighted to see them win.

    QUESTION:

    How do you see the US refusal to renegotiate the Blair House Accord reforms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe if you have entered into an agreement you don’t re-open it and the European Community collectively and the United States reached an agreement on Blair House. The United Kingdom don’t want to re-open Blair House.

    QUESTION (John Craig, Daily Express):

    How is your morale at the end of the second leg of this trip? You have obviously had a lot of success with the business side of the trip over here but there are still some rumblings back home from what we hear. How is your morale tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My morale is very high, John.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Have you talked to President Yeltsin yet and do you intend to try before you take off tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I haven’t talked to him yet. We have been in touch with Moscow but I haven’t spoken to President Yeltsin yet. I think it is very likely I will over the next few days but I have had meetings continually through today, they go through till late tonight, I will then be flying off later on this evening to Nice. I think it is unlikely I will speak to him before tomorrow but I have no doubt over the next few days I will.

    QUESTION (Colin Brown, The Independent):

    Will you be suggesting any initiative that world leaders can take in addition to giving vocal support to President Yeltsin and given that his Foreign Minister in Moscow called in all the G7 ambassadors is there anything that they are asking for in addition to support, for instance financial support?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. The G7 ambassadors were called in so that it could be explained to them what President Yeltsin had in mind. It was a question not of asking for assistance but of passing on information.

    This is a matter that is going to be determined within Russia but I think the role of other countries around the world is to make it clear what they believe is the right thing to happen and we have done that and a large number of other countries have as well; I hope more will.

    QUESTION:

    Sir, you said earlier that the UK was not likely to allow a renegotiation of the Blair House Accord but France has managed to get the EC to open further discussion on the Blair House Accord. How does the UK feel about this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is outside Blair House. It is not a question of renegotiating what was agreed at Blair House. It was agreed there are other areas outside Blair House that people can look at it but it isn’t a renegotiation of the agreement that was reached at Blair House.

    QUESTION (Stephen Cook, Financial Times):

    Dr. Mahathir made a very strong speech last night about Bosnia in particular. Were you surprised at the strength of Malaysia’s feeling on Bosnia and were you able to reassure him at all in your private discussions today or what was your feeling of the Malaysian policy today during your private discussions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think anyone can be surprised about the fact that people across the world have an emotional feeling about what is happening in Bosnia, that impact exists in the United Kingdom as well. Certainly, Dr. Mahathir and I discussed the matter and I think we both have a very clear understanding of each other’s position.

    QUESTION:

    On Bosnia, do you think that the ball is at the Bosnian Muslims’ feet now that the three factions have agreed to give them some kind of an outlet to the sea?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think an outlet to the sea is needed perhaps at Flotje [phonetic]. I don’t see immediately where else it would be. I think there will need to be an outlet to the sea in the negotiations but I think the responsibility for reaching a conclusion rests not just with the Muslims but of course with each of the groups. What we have seen over a number of occasions in the last few months is putative agreements that have been broken very shortly after they have been entered into. We need all sides to reach an agreement, they need to stick to the agreement.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Kuala Lumpur – 22 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech in Kuala Lumpur, made on Wednesday 22nd September 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Honourable Ministers, Distinguished. Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen. I am very grateful to the Minister of Finance, Anwar Ibrahim, for coming to this lunch today and for speaking and to so many of his Ministerial colleagues for accepting our invitation in what I know is a very busy Cabinet day for all of them,

    Before turning to matters close at hand, bilateral matters, trading matters, I think I should say something about events in Russia over the last 24 hours. Anwar, you spoke a moment ago about the collapse of communism, and what happens in Russia affects all of us because Russia stretches from central Europe, across Asia to the Pacific, because as a Permanent Member of the Security Council, Russia is involved in all the most critical international problems, whether it is the Middle East, Bosnia or Cambodia,

    The changes began in the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev and they were carried into a new phase by Boris Yeltsin as President of Russia. They were remarkable changes, they generated hope and expectation far beyond Russia’s boundaries.

    But I do not think that we should be surprised that this immense transformation has proved erratic and difficult, it has demanded high courage from the reformers within Russia and steady nerves from their supporters on the outside.

    I believe those of us outside need to keep a clear view of what we are supporting and why we are supporting it. The United Kingdom wants to see democracy securely founded in Russia under a democratic constitution providing for the rule of law and the rights of the individual. We believe that authoritarian communist rule in the Soviet Union was both morally wrong and hugely damaging, it wasted the resources of a rich and proud nation and ruined its economy over many generations.

    In the referendum in April the people of Russia gave President Yeltsin a clear mandate to complete democratic reform. Under that mandate and of the first popularly elected President of Russia he has been seeking to bring in a new constitution. His political opponents, entrenched in a parliament elected under Soviet rule, have fought a rear guard action to block the people’s will and paralyse reform.

    President Yeltsin now intends to call parliamentary elections in December, leading to the adoption by a new parliament of a new constitution. His opponents are evidently not prepared to put their credentials to the test. I believe passionately that the Russian people should have the right to decide themselves, I believe this will be a vital step to underpin reform. I believe they should be allowed to elect a genuinely democratic and representative parliament and that is why I believe President Yeltsin is right, that is why I believe he deserves all our continuing support, and it was for that reason that earlier today I sent him a message making it clear that he continues to have the full and unqualified support of the United Kingdom.

    Russia, of course, is but one of the subjects I look forward to discussing with Dr Mahatir and his colleagues during the rest of this afternoon and this evening. We will have a busy agenda: developments in Asia; former Yugoslavia we shall certainly discuss; the Middle East; as well as the crucially important Uruguay Round negotiations. All of these matters are vital to all free democratic nations and will be the legitimate matter for our discussions this afternoon.

    But at lunchtime today in the presence of so many Ministers with economic responsibilities, and of so many leading British and Malaysian figures from the business world, I want to turn particularly to our longstanding and growing economic partnership.

    We share a belief, we British and Malaysians, a belief in free trade. We in Britain have worked for the completion within the European Community of the Single European Market. I think I can say without a shred of over-exaggeration that we in Britain are the leading free traders in Western Europe. We have worked assiduously for an outward looking, open and competitive European Community and we shall continue to do so.

    And here in Malaysia you with your partners have been progressing towards the ASEAN free trade area. Each of our countries has benefited from business which has boosted two-way trade between us to over 1.5 billion pounds each and every year, and for British investment in Malaysia to around 2 billion pounds. Both countries have been pioneers of privatisation within their own continents. Malaysia has pursued, it is continuing to pursue, that ambitious and exciting privatisation programme and I know that you plan to go even further.

    In Britain during the period of the last decade or so we have released 46 separate companies with a total value of 50 billion pounds into private ownership. Many of them in the public sector did not make profits and did not deliver much of a service, now they do make profits and they yield taxes towards the provision of communal services and I believe they deliver a far better service as well.

    And so we are seeing the benefits of better management, better services and increased profitability. And I make that point because no less than 7 of the businessmen accompanying me here today are the heads of former nationalised, now private sector companies British Aerospace, British Gas, Cable and Wireless, the National Grid Company, North West Water, PowerGen, Rolls Royce all highly successful competitive companies with a rising international reputation.

    North West Water, for example, took part in EPO in the world’s first water privatisation project.. The Rolls Royce industrial power group has completed the conversion of the Connaught Bridge Power Station which I had the pleasure and privilege of visiting this morning. And British Aerospace has been one of the companies helping to meet Malaysia’s need for defence equipment over many years. Other companies represented here today are equally effective. Bywater, with the Apamur [phon] Dam, has helped the national rural water supply scheme. I remember. Bywater, getting on for nearly a quarter of a century ago when I think I had the pleasure of agreeing almost one of the first banking loans they ever had, and if I had realised how good they would be and how they would have grown I would have agreed to that loan far more speedily and on far better terms than I did. Balfour Beatty and GEC have been building the Pergau Hydro Power Station and these two companies, with Trafalgar House and Gammon, are partners in the British/Japanese consortium on the new Kuala Lumpur international airport.

    Those are remarkable projects and yet these projects are just a part of the successful modern, growing, relationship, a relationship that has flourished and continues to flower as year succeeds year.

    But they are part also of something else as well, part also of a wider picture of dynamic economic growth in Asia, matched by a stronger political voice and widening influence in international affairs.

    Britain’s links with Asia are very old, they go back over 4 centuries. But it is not over the past that I think we should dwell, and even necessarily entirely the present, what we need to do is to look to the future rather than to the past and as we do so we are determined to strengthen and deepen our involvement in your region, our relationship politically and our relationship economically as well.

    I remarked yesterday on the pace of change in Malaysia in the 20 years or so since my first visit. I find it astonishing to contemplate the Malaysia I saw when I first came here in the 1970s and to see today the immense changes towards an industrial society that have been created during the period of those two decades, they are truly remarkable changes of which I believe Malaysia can be justly proud.

    But Britain too has changed during that period, through our membership of the European Community we have widened our economic base. Many overseas companies, rightly, see the United Kingdom as the most convenient and effective centre for the whole of their European operations. We have restructured our industry, the City of London has adopted the most sophisticated techniques to remain in the forefront of the world’s financial centres, we have become both more cosmopolitan and more competitive. And as we emerge from the recession that has engulfed so much of the western industrial world and many areas beyond it, as we emerge from that we find ourselves perhaps better placed for increased competitiveness than we have found ourselves for almost two decades.

    You will, I hope, here in Malaysia experience this competitiveness in your dealings with the companies represented here today, But I hope also that you will find that the values we respect are the same, and it is shared values, apart from shared interests in free trade, the shared values – integrity, a sense of responsibility, that basic underpinning of an attachment to democracy and the rule of law – those are elements of our twin relationship that have grown and continue to grow year upon year.

    I believe those are the essence of the partnership, quite apart from the mutual business interests that we share, those are the essence of the partnership and friendship between Britain and Malaysia that have enabled it to grow out of a colonial past into a modern industrial partnership.

    I am delighted therefore to be here today, I look forward to my discussions later today. I am delighted to have brought with me this remarkable delegation of senior businessmen, most of whom find already are by no means new to this market but are meeting many old friends with whom they have had a longstanding relationship. I wish them well in their bilateral discussions, I believe their mutual success is in the interests of Malaysia and in the interests of the United Kingdom and it is that mutual success and that mutual relationship that I hope for and that we must all work for, and I am delighted to have had the opportunity of being here today to express that thought to all of you.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Tokyo – 9 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference, held in Tokyo on Friday 9th July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think this week we have had a productive meeting in Tokyo. To be frank, the results are better than I anticipated when I came and better I think than most people expected. Let me just touch very briefly on the main issues without repeating the communiques and then open up the floor to the questions that you may have.

    I think on the market access package it is clearly a significant step, it does mean that we are now open to return the talks back to Geneva on a multilateral basis, there is still a great deal to be done, I do not hide that from anyone, but I think it does reopen a realistic possibility of a satisfactory outcome towards the end of this year. I think people often tend to forget how much wider these particular trade talks are than any we have seen before. That does correspondingly mean the prize of them being successful is that much greater, though the price potentially to be paid, were we to fail to reach an agreement, is also one I hope that will provide a substantial impetus for everyone to make whatever sacrifices may be necessary to ensure we get a satisfactory outcome.

    I think this summit has acted as a catalyst, it was always likely that it would and I am delighted that that is how it turned out.

    If I could just say a word about the economic discussions we had and the economic communique. The underlying message I think is quite clear, we need to break down the barriers to growth and the barriers to jobs, that was a theme in the discussions the European Community had at Copenhagen, it has been echoed very satisfactorily here in Tokyo this week.

    With the exception of Japan, all of the countries represented here have very substantial budget deficits, bigger than is desirable I think in every case. We spent some time discussing that, I think there is a recognition that those deficits need to be reduced and that all of us need to keep social costs within the bounds of what we can afford. This is not just a particular problem in the United Kingdom, it is a problem that it was evident in the discussions is felt right across the G7. It will mean difficult decisions I suspect in each of those countries but they are decisions that are going to be necessary. Provided people understand what lies behind them and what the impact of them will be, I think people would prefer those home truths rather than empty promises.

    On the summit itself, we have had some useful innovations this year and I would like to congratulate Prime Minister Miyazawa upon them. It has had rather less pomp than we have sometimes been accustomed to on these occasions and I certainly welcome the fact that that is the case. We will have even less pomp, I trust, in future.

    I made further proposals for reshaping the summit process, they have been accepted, most of them, and we are proposing to make it a good deal more informal in future, there will be much less time preparing documents, much more time in really frank and informal discussion between the Heads of Government. I think that is welcome, it may be there are yet more reforms to be made and perhaps we will see how next year’s meeting in Naples goes before returning afresh to that particular matter.

    On the political declaration, we spent some time on Bosnia and non-proliferation and I think there is a very satisfactory statement there. We agreed that Iran, Iraq and Libya all pose serious problems for the international community. I was delighted at the backing for constitutional talks in South Africa and returned to a theme I have mentioned before, the desirability of lifting sanctions on South Africa soon to give them access to the international financial institutions. They still have a birth rate growth of around 3 percent, no economic growth at all, and the impact of that combination of factors is very damaging indeed for many millions of the poorest of people in South Africa.

    On Russia we have a substantial meeting this afternoon with President Yeltsin. I met him over breakfast, he certainly was very relaxed and in very good form. He feels he is making good progress in reshaping the political system, he understands there is still a substantial way to go to complete the new draft constitution and convene new parliamentary elections. But there is no doubt he is a good deal more confident about matters after his remarkable referendum victory some while ago.

    We talked about arrangements for stepping up Russia’s political dialogue both with the European Community and with the seven summit countries. At Copenhagen a week or so ago I sought and obtained the agreement of our European Community partners for twice yearly bilateral summits with President Yeltsin, I think he was very pleased with that, certainly he proposes to take up that particular offer. And I suggested this morning that we should this afternoon invite President Yeltsin to join us in Naples next year at the end of the formal G7 for a further G7 plus 1 discussion on the same basis as this year and that offer will be made to President Yeltsin this afternoon and I have no doubt he will accept it.

    We spent some time on free trade, some time on other matters that perhaps I will raise only in questions if you invite me to do so. We have agreed a substantial new programme to help privatisation in Russia, it amounts to 3 billion, it is a privatisation and restructuring programme and I think that will be very well received this afternoon.

    One matter I raised that is not in the communique, I raised it at a late stage but it is not necessarily a matter for the communique, is a letter that all of the participants at the summit have had from Mr Shevardnadze. The position in Georgia is desperate, not just the war but very dire humanitarian problems as well. I think we do need to encourage both Russia and Georgia. with United Nations support, to have yet another look at finding a solution to the problems of Adhardzia [phon], it is important they do so, it would open up the way for the despatch of United Nations observers. Firstly there is the question of trying to mitigate the fighting, but there is also the question of a severe danger of starvation and a dramatic lack of medical and other equipment in Georgia. I raised that this morning, I now think it is probable that the European Community and others will be despatching some assistance to Georgia fairly speedily, I have no doubt myself that that is badly needed.

    Just finally, if I may, a word about the bilateral relationship with Japan. The Japanese government have invited me to return in September for a bilateral visit. We are keen to enhance our political relationship with Japan, it is in very good shape now, it has been improving dramatically over recent years, we have thriving trade, I think that is going to be boosted by the removal of the tariff on Scotch whisky, there are internal tariffs as well, perhaps they also may decline over time. British and Japanese companies have been working together in projects in a number of companies. When I come back to Tokyo in September I propose to bring with me a mission of very senior businessmen and leaders of high technology companies, that will be led by Michael Perry of Unilever but there will be a number of other very high profile British businessmen with me as well.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, the summit declaration includes a commitment to reform the United Nations, are you now prepared to see Japan and possibly Germany as permanent members of the Security Council?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I welcome the debate on the Security Council reform and we fed in our comments to the Secretary General of the UN. I am happy to make the position entirely clear. We are certainly not against change either in the UN or in the Security Council. What the debate is about is about enlarging the membership of the Security Council, including its permanent membership. The permanent membership of any member, including the United Kingdom, is not of course in question. The main concern that we have is to maintain the effectiveness of the working of the Council. It has over the past 2 or 3 years been working with, I think most people would say, an unprecedented degree of consensus, nobody wants to damage that, to enable the Council to respond satisfactorily to a whole range of regional crises — Kuwait, self-evidently, Cambodia, Somalia, Bosnia – and nobody wishes to damage that degree of consensus. That said, it is going to be a difficult debate. There are many aspirants who would like a permanent seat, agreement will be difficult to reach and particularly difficult if we are to reach it without damaging the work that the Council does.

    I think that debate should take place, I welcome that. There are a number of countries who by virtue of their global interests, you have mentioned Germany, you have mentioned Japan, by virtue of their global interests, their contributions to international security, that will be interested in seeking a permanent seat. That carries with it obligations, peace keeping of course is one obligation that it will tend to carry with it. I am very pleased to see the steps being taken in Germany to amend the constitution, that would allow full German participation. I welcome the statement by the Japanese that they are prepared to do all they can to discharge their obligations to the Security Council. Now if agreement can be reached on these points, I suspect those countries could be among the beneficiaries of reform but it would have to be on the basis of their playing a full part in Security Council activities, including peace keeping.

    So the simple straightforward answer is I am certainly not opposed to reform, I think it has to be the right reform and it has to be on the right basis. That debate has started, I think it will go on for some time, but I welcome it.

    QUESTION (Peter Jay, BBC):

    If there had been no Economic Summit, what difference would that have made to the ordinary man and woman in the street, apart from saving the Japanese taxpayer a lot of money?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not here to speak for the Japanese taxpayer, I have enough trouble with my own taxpayers, I will leave others to speak for that. I think the catalytic effect of this meeting on the trade talks was clearly very important. I think also the degree to which it clarified international problems, the deficit is one I would stress most obviously, was also very useful. But also it clarified the contribution collectively that the participants can make to restoring some measure of growth across the world economy.

    If I could pick out the points of emphasis: agreement in Japan to the need for fiscal stimulus to improve Japanese demand, I think that will be very helpful; the reiteration by the United States of dealing with their fiscal deficit is a substantial contribution that they can make; and in Europe of course the renewed commitment by the Europeans collectively that there is a need for a decline in the present level of interest rates. I think the combination of those factors, brought together so that everyone can see the extent to which they interlink in restoring confidence and growth of the world economy, is very useful.

    So the word I would offer, if you wanted a single word, would be jobs, because 7 think it is the combination of those factors that restores confidence, will I trust restore growth, and with it, although there is not an umbilical relationship between growth and jobs, we are not going to get: jobs without growth. Providing we get growth we will have continued investment and I hope we will be able to take some of the 23 million G7 unemployed citizens off that list of being unemployed and back into work.

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, can you please tell us what you discussed with Mr. Yeltsin as far as trade access is concerned and also can you tell us how much of the privatisation package is actually new money and also how much of it is going to be equity rather than loans?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we will set out the details of the privatisation package after we have given it to President Yeltsin and discussed it with him this afternoon. It is a mixture of redirecting existing resources and new money – it is a mixture of the two.

    On the trade aspect, we did spend some time talking about trade this morning. The objective, not obtainable in the short-term, must be free trade between Russia and the rest of the world. We would like to see Russia join the GATT – I think that also is an objective we have. The Chancellor of the Exchequer joined me for the breakfast with President Yeltsin and as we made clear this morning, the restructuring of the Russian economy has some way to go before we can make free trade a reality.

    Free trade imposes obligations on Russia as well as advantages for Russia. They would certainly need to remove some of the quite extraordinary subsidies they have in many parts of their industry. President Yeltsin accepted that; that is the direction in which he wishes to go. As he begins to make moves on subsidies, I hope the western countries generally will begin to increasingly open their markets and move towards a completely free trade option. What clearly is patently silly over time is for the West to continue to provide financial resources to Russia whilst at the same time closing their markets to Russian exports which would enable them to diminish their need for those same financial. resources.

    I found it a very productive discussion. President Yeltsin invited me to go back to Russia – we are looking at dates – and one of the issues we will certainly discuss then is trade.

    QUESTION (Japanese Newspaper):

    Could you tell me why you are so eager to reform the summit? Secondly, when you met Mr. Myazawa, when you promised to come to Japan again, did you say that he was going to see you again?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I look forward to seeing him again. I have seen him many times in the past, I look forward to seeing him many times in the future.
    Why reform the summit? At its simplest, because it is far too bureaucratic. It is too bureaucratic, it is too pre-cooked.

    There are several advantages in a summit like this – some of them are tangible, some of them are less tangible. The tangible results are some of the things I was talking about a few minutes ago and I won’t reiterate that. The intangible advantage of a summit is the extent to which the leaders of the industrialised nations get to know one another much better. When there is a problem, when there is a crisis, it is much easier to be able to pick up the phone and talk to someone you know, you have met, you trust, whose mind processes you understand. Also I think the informality of discussions – we had a very informal discussion over dinner on the first evening, very informal, very wide-ranging and I think everyone learned a great about all the other participants as a result of that discussion.

    Often when one comes together in these meetings the sort of thing one ought to discuss is not the issue that needs a decision tomorrow but the direction of policy perhaps over very many years. That is not a matter for headlines the next day or the day after. There is an immediacy about the news for these days; nobody these days runs large stories about how G7 leaders might have contemplated what the world would look like in twenty years’ time, there is not a lot of space in the press for that, they are more concerned about what actually happened today. Informality and informal discussions will enable those wider discussions to take place as well.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you were talking about home truths earlier on.

    There is a Gallup poll in today’s “Telegraph” which shows Labour on 43, Liberals on 26 and the Conservatives on 24, your own rating is down to 19% which is the lowest ever in Gallup. Why do you think the dissatisfaction at home with the Government is focused on you so personally and at the end of a week when you have achieved some widely-acknowledged good results here? Aren’t you going to feel like packing it in if your rating goes down any more?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Politics is personalised – I think that is the nature of life not just in the United Kingdom but all over the world – much more personalised than ever it has been. I think that is part of the baggage people have to get used to. I don’t think one needs to let it necessarily worry oneself.
    I seem to recall during the last election answering an awful lot of questions about opinion polls. I also seem to recall what the election result was like and none of the opinion polls remotely got near to the result as it actually turned out to be when people had to make their decision.
    I understand people’ s concerns at the moment. It has been a rough old twelve months economically but if I had to said to you the evening after the election last year that fifteen months further on we would have inflation at 1.25%, interest rates at 6%, exports booming, a substantial shift in European policy towards our direction and we would have had four successive months in which unemployment fell without unemployment reaching 3 million let alone the 3.5 million most experts were predicting, I think you would have probably raised an eyebrow and suggested I think again but when you strip away lots of the short-term sensational matters that have dominated people’s interest in the United Kingdom over much of the last year, that is the reality of what has happened.
    The other reality of what has happened is that a complete parliamentary programme has gone through the House of Commons and very soon will be entirely through the House of Lords. If that same opinion poll had said what had Parliament been concentrating on this year I bet a huge proportion of people would have said: “Oh! They have done nothing except Maastricht and the European debate!” but in fact there have been a very large number of substantial reforming pieces of legislation through the House of Commons so I am not overly concerned about opinion polls.

    SAME MAN:

    Do you ever feel like packing it up?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Do I look like it?

    QUESTION (PASS News Agency, Russsia):

    Prime Minister, were the respective leaders unanimous in their wish to meet Mr. Yeltsin in Naples and what is your personal opinion about the transfer from G7 to G8?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer to the first question is yes, we were all completely unanimous. There was no shred of dissent about the desirability of Mr. Yeltsin coming to Naples next year or about inviting him now.

    I think the formula of G7+1 is an appropriate formula for the time being. The G7 are the largest industrialised nations in the world. At the moment, Russia does not fall into that category so I think it is appropriate G7+1 but Russia is a vitally important nation politically and in every other way and the G7 leaders think it is both appropriate and in our interests as well as in Russia’s interests to have this regular and annual dialogue.

    QUESTION (Anthony Rowley, Business Times and Oxford Analytica):

    Prime Minister, how seriously should we take this statement in paragraph 7 of the Economic Declaration that the G7 have agreed that no recourse should be made to initiatives and arrangements that threaten to undermine the multilateral open trading system? Presumably the search, for instance, for a framework agreement between the United States and Japan will continue to go forward.

    Secondly, I wonder what you make of Japan’s unwillingness at this stage to see an indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you should take it seriously, I think the desirability to move towards an open trading relationship is very widespread and I think the importance of that can scarcely be overstated. It often surprises me when I talk to people around the world, the extent to which they do not realise the shackles that still remain on free trade. One of the great advantages of the market access package that the quad produced the other day was the scale of the reduction in many of the tariffs but in many cases it still isn’t abolition of the tariffs. We have a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I think “General Agreement” is a rather informal position – I think it was intended to be temporary at the time and has never properly been formalised. I hope that we will be able to move to a more formal multilateral trade organisation as part of these particular talks. I think that would be a great advantage if we are able to do that. There still seem to be differing views on that but I certainly hope we can achieve that.

    Regarding your second question, I think that is a question for Mr. Miyazawa, not me.

    QUESTION (Chris Butler, Daily Express):

    If modesty will permit, would you describe what you think was Britain’s main contribution both to the summit and to the communique?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    How long have you got?

    QUESTION (Chris Butler, Daily Express):

    Briefly.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You are asking for two things that are mutually incompatible, firstly to set out what we have done and secondly to tell you briefly – the two things are incompatible.

    If you look at the contributions – and you actually saw the speech never mind the communiques at Copenhagen last week and here – you will notice a very substantial similarity in the broad economic argument that I advanced at Copenhagen that is also here. I don’t claim to be the only person who holds that view but I certainly advanced it forcibly in Copenhagen and forcibly again here, the question of open markets and a whole range of supply-side reforms.

    No-one is seriously arguing these days – with the possible exception of the British Labour Party – that large fiscal expenditure is the way to lift countries out of recession and to put lots of people back to work. On the back of the fiscal deficits that people have, nobody is really advancing that argument.

    The opening up of markets, of supply side reforms, they are something we have argued for for some time now accepted in the Copenhagen communique, accepted here. That is a very substantial point.

    On some of the smaller points since you simply asked for an illustration, I suppose the summit reform is one illustration; the decision to invite President Yeltsin now is another initiative that came from the British; the decision to provide more help to Georgia, although it came last in the communique, is another British initiative. There are others as well. I will give you a full list later if you like.

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds, BBC):

    If the situation in Bosnia deteriorates, will you cut and run or will you intervene more strongly?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think one can make decisions of what one would do in Bosnia until you see what actually has happened on the ground. We have made it perfectly clear that we want to stay there and assist with humanitarian aid. We were the first in, we were there in large numbers. We have been in some of the most difficult positions. I think the British command and the British troops have done a superb job there right the way through some very difficult times, we have sponsored most of the UN resolutions.

    We still want to see a political settlement and the maintenance of humanitarian aid but beyond humanitarian aid it seems to me overwhelmingly likely that if there is a political settlement it will need some form of international support and international guarantees. If Lord Owen and others are able to reach a political settlement, the Muslim state will be in the centre. It will need access to the sea; that is going to need a corridor. It defies logic that that corridor isn’t going to need some form of international guarantee, very possibly United Nations troops but quite apart from that, the mess we are likely to find there at the end of the fighting is certainly also going to need an international presence to help with it. I think that, too, will be the United Nations and most of the big nations would expect to fulfil their obligations and play a part in that.

    QUESTION (Reuters News Agency):

    Prime Minister, would you please tell us how you see the present political upheaval in Japan. As you may know very well, Mr. Miyazawa called a snap election for July 18 and some people expect Japan will have a two-party system some time after the election.

    How do you see the situation? Japan is changing or not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly think Japan is changing but if there is one thing I have learned in politics over the last 20 years, it is that it is extremely unwise to go to another country and comment on its political system at the beginning of a general election.

    I will simply say that having contested a number of general elections myself, they should be held at regular and not too frequent intervals and I wish all the participants in the Japanese general election as much enjoyment as I had in mine.

    QUESTION (William Keegan, The Observer):

    You mentioned the welcome fall in unemployment in the UK. How much of this do you attribute to supply-side policies and how much to devaluation, lower interest rates and the public sector deficit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the supply-side changes made throughout the 1980s have made the United Kingdom economy a much more flexible economy than it was in the past. Many people suspected that the unemployment tail after the end of the recession would go on just as it did after the 1981 recession, perhaps for three or four years. It was on that basis that so many people forecast unemployment going up to 3.5 million. Well, it is now clear it isn’t going to go up to 3.5 million. The adjusted figures – proper figures, if I can put it that way – didn’t actually quite reach 3 million and have now fallen for four months in a row.

    I think all the factors you mentioned are factors. The speed at which it turned round I think owes a good deal to the supply-side reforms of the 1980s. The best illustration of that I suppose one can give is if you look at the United States – perhaps the most flexible economy; whenever its economy shows an upturn their unemployment does tend to decline more rapidly than in other far more structured economies in western Europe so I think those supply-side changes played a significant role. That said, I have absolutely no doubt that the devaluation and the reduction of interest rates have accelerated that trend. I think that must self-evidently be so.

  • PMQT – 27th April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Gunnell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

    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. Gunnell : Now that there is optimism that the bulk of the Maxwell pension funding will be recovered over the next four years, is it not time to end once and for all the uncertainties felt by many of those lobbying us today? Will the Prime Minister authorise the availability of capital now, knowing full well that as funds are recovered most of that money will come back? Eighteen months is too long, for elderly people in particular, to suffer such anxiety. Will the Prime Minister end it now?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that over many months we have made a positive response to the Maxwell reservations. I believe that it was the right thing to do, not least setting up the Maxwell pensioners’ trust, which has raised more than £6 million, and providing £2.5 million to ensure that pensions are paid. We continue to look sympathetically at the problem, but I have no fresh announcements to make today.

    Sir John Wheeler : In the wake of the bomb in the City of London on Saturday, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will bring forward the reinsurance scheme? Will he urge the Leader of the House to make time for legislation for that scheme as soon as possible?

    The Prime Minister : The Government scheme for insurance against terrorist attacks has been providing cover since 1 January this year and the Government will fully honour their commitment under the scheme. It is, of course, a matter for individual businesses whether or not they choose to take out such cover, but everyone who has done so, or has alternative policies, will have been covered against damage caused by the Bishopsgate bomb. The Government scheme is one of reinsurance for the industry, so those who have suffered damage will need to make claims to their insurers in the usual way. On my right hon. Friend’s last point, legislation to provide for payments to be made to the insurance companies under the scheme will be brought before the House as soon as possible. I hope that it will be possible to attract support from all parts of the House for that measure.

    Mr. John Smith : Now that all six teacher and head teacher organisations have appealed to the Secretary of State for Education to suspend this year’s testing and assessment arrangements under the national curriculum, will the Government for once listen to the considered professional judgment of the whole teaching profession and suspend this year’s tests?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the importance that we put behind the principle of testing. He also knows–he will have heard the remarks of Sir Ron Dearing–that we need the experience of this year’s tests to ensure that we are able to remove the unnecessary bureaucracy and make sure that the tests are right for the future. The implication of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question is that he now accepts the principle of testing. I hope that is now so.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that this increasingly bitter dispute is not about the principle of sensible testing but about the dogmatic insistence of an arrogant Secretary of State that his view must prevail against those of governors, teachers and parents? Why does not the Secretary of State recognise that which is recognised by everyone else–that he has lost the argument and that it is an insult to use £700,000 of taxpayers’ money on futile propaganda?

    The Prime Minister : I notice again that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not indicate that he does not accept the principle. I assume that he does accept the principle of testing. In view of his question, he may care to comment on the remark by the National Union of Teachers president, who said :

    “We should annihilate tests in the national curriculum.” I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now condemn that particular comment. On his further point, I must tell him that I do not think it appropriate for teachers to take industrial action at the expense of those tests.

    Mr. John Smith : If the Prime Minister is so confident of parents’ support, why does he not use that £700,000 to hold a ballot, to find out what parents really think? If the Government are sincere about parental choice, why not let the parents choose?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as every other right hon. and hon. Member that two agendas are in play –that of the ordinary teacher who wants less bureaucracy, which we are considering and to which we shall respond, and that of the militants’ opposition to any sort of testing or appraisal and to all our reforms. I note that the right hon. and learned Gentleman implies that he is favour of tests, but he does not have the courage to denounce the NUT and its comments about industrial action.

    Mr. Cash : Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm the assurance that he gave the House unambiguously on 24 September last year, that if the Danes vote no in the second referendum it would be unacceptable for us and the rest of the Community to go ahead without Denmark, and that the Maastricht treaty could not go ahead?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps my hon. Friend has been misled by some of the reports that he may have seen this morning. The leader of the Progress party in Denmark, which my hon. Friend will know is the only Danish party opposed to the Maastricht treaty, said :

    “There was nothing new in the Foreign Secretary’s remarks, and they were manipulated by the press.”

    That was her comment, not mine. As to my hon. Friend’s specific question, if he will study the transcript of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, a copy of which will be placed in the Library, he will find that my right hon. Friend made four straightforward points. First, we do not expect the Danes to vote no. Secondly, were they to do so the Maastricht treaty could not enter into force because it requires ratification by 12 member states. Thirdly, United Kingdom legislation to ratify the treaty could therefore not proceed. Finally, all 12 members of the European Community would need to hold urgent consultations about what to do next. Each of those points is self-evident. That was said by my right hon. Friend yesterday.

     

    Q2. Mr. McFall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

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

    Mr. McFall : In the right hon. Gentleman’s first speech as Prime Minister, he spoke of a commonsense view of life from a tolerant perspective. Now that the Scottish Conservative party has joined the massive opposition to water privatisation in Scotland, will the Prime Minister display that tolerance by recognising the genuine and universal concern felt in Scotland, where water is regarded as being for the benefit of all–not for the profit of a few? At next month’s Tory conference, will the Prime Minister state that the public interest will best be served by increased investment in the present water and sewerage system? Regardless of whatever the Tories have brought to Scotland in the last 14 years, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall not witness the return of the Victorian cry of “Gardyloos!” to the streets of Edinburgh and Glasgow?

    The Prime Minister : The future structure of water and sewerage services in Scotland is still under consideration. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to go further while that matter remains under consideration.

     

    Q3. Mr. Rathbone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

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

    Mr. Rathbone : Now that Britain is exporting television to Germany, lace to Brussels, cosmetics to the French and pizzas to Italy, as my right hon. Friend pointed out in Manchester last week, does he not think that all British companies now have the competitive edge to develop export markets everywhere?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right to praise our exporters and to point to the opportunities for further exports. We also export more per head than Japan and now have an excellent opportunity to break into new markets and win back old ones. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor increased the amount of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover both last autumn and in the recent Budget. Manufacturing matters ; exporting matters. We seek to support them both.

     

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

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

    Mr. Gerrard : Is the Prime Minister aware that very many people in London are extremely worried about the survival of the travelcard and concessionary fares after bus deregulation and rail franchising and that their fears are echoed today in the report by the Select Committee on Transport? Will the Prime Minister tell us what he intends to do to guarantee the future of the travelcard and concessionary fares schemes?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to study the report of the Select Committee and then respond to it. That is what we will do.

    Mr. Whittingdale : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating President Yeltsin on his outstanding personal victory at the weekend? Does he agree that, in supporting President Yeltsin, the Russian people have voted in favour of democracy built on market economics? Does this not represent by far the best chance for the future of Russia?

    The Prime Minister : I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right about the last point. I have sent my warm congratulations to President Yeltsin on the outcome of the referendum. The results are remarkable. They show that the Russian people maintain their personal trust in the President and, most important, that they wish him to carry his democratic reforms further. It is a remarkable result on the back of the sacrifices that have been made towards economic transformation. I believe that the Russian people are beginning to see the benefits of individual enterprise. Success for Russia is essential for its people and equally vital for the rest of the world.

     

    Q5. Ms Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

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

    Ms Eagle : Does the Prime Minister not find ironic that, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic, we are losing the battle for our shipyards without even a fight? Given his Government’s refusal to create a strategy for defence diversification, what action does the Prime Minister intend to take in response to the petition handed to him today by the save Cammel Laird community group, asking him to save the yard from closure in July?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Lady knows, there is a problem for shipbuilding round the world as a result of the level of capacity and the level of demand. I understand the hon. Lady’s concern about Cammel Laird and I know that it is shared by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). The yard’s future is primarily a commercial decision for Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. which is having to respond to that worldwide decline, which is not just a problem for the United Kingdom but one for the rest of Europe and for countries in other parts of the world. None the less, I will study with great care the letter from the Cammel Laird support group and reply in due course.

    Mr. Batiste : Will my right hon. Friend reassess the case for identity cards to see whether they can give significant support to the police in their fight against crime and terrorism?

    The Prime Minister : That is a matter which from time to time we will need to review. It is one which has many difficulties. We have looked at it in the past and not found it a terribly attractive proposition. I know that a constituency is demanding it. It is not something which I would wish to rule out, but it is not on our immediate agenda.

     

    Shetland

    Q6. Mr. Wallace : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to pay an official visit to Shetland.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to do so at present, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Earl of Caithness visited Shetland on 29 and 30 March.

    Mr. Wallace : I know that that reply will dismay my constituents. They will be dismayed to learn that, some 16 weeks after the Braer went aground, the Prime Minister has neither visited the area nor indicated any intention of doing so. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Wallace : I shall resist the temptation to ask what would have happened if a ship had gone aground on the white cliffs of Dover. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and hear the hon. Gentleman out.

    Mr. Wallace : If the Prime Minister came to see at first hand a community’s remarkable, practical and vigorous response to the adversities that affected it on 5 January, he would be very impressed indeed. If, in the attempt to restore the economic fortunes of that community, it is necessary to embark on a marketing exercise to restore Shetland’s good name for good-quality produce, will the Prime Minister repeat that the polluter should pay? If so, will he give the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund a nudge in the right direction?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly say to the hon. Gentleman that the response of the people in the area was indeed remarkable. That was noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and by a number of my other right hon. Friends, all of whom visited the area in the period immediately following the tragedy. What the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention was that an economic impact study is being mounted under the direction of Shetland Islands council, and with the participation of Shetland Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. That will help to target resources where they are most needed, and I think that it is the right way in which to proceed for the present.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 November 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Private Detectives

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister what use his Department has made of private detectives in each of the last five years; at what cost; and if he will list the firms involved.

    The Prime Minister : My Office has not made use of private detectives.

     

    President Yeltsin

    Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent visit of President Yeltsin of Russia.

    The Prime Minister : President Yeltsin paid a highly successful visit on 9 and 10 November, the first official visit to the United Kingdom by a President of Russia. During his visit he addressed Members of both Houses in the Royal Gallery, attended a luncheon given by Her Majesty the Queen and met businessmen at the London Stock Exchange. I hosted a dinner for the President in the painted hall of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich.

    President Yeltsin and I signed a treaty on the principles of relations between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation and five other agreements and memoranda of understanding were signed by representatives of the two Governments during the visit. In discussions with the President, I welcomed the new and friendly relations between the United Kingdom and Russia and underlined the Government’s support for the process of economic and political reform in Russia.

     

    Classless Society

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made towards the creation of a classless society in Britain.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s policies are aimed, and will continue to be aimed, at widening choice and opportunity for all members of society. Most recently, progress has been made through the introduction in the 1992 Budget, of a new lower rate band which reduced the marginal rate to 20 per cent. for almost 4 million people on low incomes, including over 1 million working wives; through our recent reforms in education and health; and through other public service initiatives, including the introduction of the citizens charter.

     

    Environment

    Mr. David Porter : To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made on implementing the involvement of young people in environmental awareness following the decisions agreed at the 1992 Earth summit; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Many of the recommendations relating to young people in Agenda 21 have already been implemented in the United Kingdom; for example, the requirements of a number of subjects in the national curriculum include studies relevant to the environment. We are also supporting informal environmental education initiatives through the Department of the Environment’s grant schemes. Chapter 17 of the Second Year Report (Cm 2068) on the anniversary of the “Environment” White Paper explains our action in detail.

     

    Office Telephone Lines

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 November, Official Report, column 672, regarding facilities for the public to telephone his Office, if he will give details of the existing practice.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member on 10 November at column 672.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on 10 November, Official Report, columns 737-38, what was the start date for the application of the full embargo on the supply of arms to Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : The full embargo came into force at midnight on 8 August 1990 in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolution 661.

    All relevant issues will be covered by Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry whose terms of reference will be :

    “Having examined the facts in relation to the export from the United Kingdom of defence equipment and dual use goods to Iraq between December 1984 and August 1990 and the decisions reached on the export licence applications for such goods and the basis for them, to report on whether the relevant Departments, Agencies, and responsible Ministers operated in accordance with the policies of Her Majesty’s Government; to examine and report on decisions taken by the prosecuting authority and by those signing public interest immunity certificates in R v Henderson and any other similar cases that he considers relevant to the issues of the inquiry; and to make recommendations”.

    The terms of reference have not been restricted to Matrix Churchill. They include the supergun and other defence and dual-use sales.

    The terms of reference relate not just to arms questions but to decisions taken on the prosecution of companies and on public interest immunity.

    All Ministers who are called will give evidence.

    All civil servants who are called will be instructed to co-operate.

    All papers that the inquiry calls for will be made available. Lord Justice Scott will be entirely free to decide on the publication of his report and of the evidence he takes.

    If Lord Justice Scott finds that his powers are in any way insufficient, he can invite the Government to alter the basis of his inquiry and the Government would agree to do so.

    The inquiry will report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

     

    Cabinet Committees

    Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister whether the rules of collective responsibility for decisions made in a Cabinet Committee are applied only to those attending the meeting.

    The Prime Minister : Decisions reached by the Cabinet or Ministerial Committees are binding on all members of the Government.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Yeltsin – 9 November 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Yeltsin, held in London on Monday 9th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like firstly to express the warmest possible welcome to President Yeltsin and his colleagues on his visit here today. think it is an important visit. The visit is about our joint commitment to democratic values and economic reform and fittingly President Yeltsin will mark it tomorrow by addressing Members of both Houses of Parliament.

    The meeting is about the success of the partnership which we founded here in London when last we met in January and at that particular meeting we pledged ourselves to work together on a range of different issues, on international problems, on economic cooperation, on Russia’s membership of the International Monetary Fund, on the debt of the former Soviet Union and for a new agreement between the European Community and Russia and on closer defence contracts and on the control and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

    I would like to say to you today that we have delivered upon those proposals. Our governments, together with our international partners, have made important progress on all of those vital issues and on many more besides. We have signed today the first general treaty between Britain and Russia in over 200 years, together with five other agreements.

    So that is my first message today. The path ahead is undoubtedly very difficult, the transition to a post-Soviet, post-communist world will take years to complete. But as we look ahead to those difficulties I do not believe we should overlook the positive achievements that have been made in under a year.

    My second message is that the President and I have spent today looking ahead, we have mapped out an agenda for the next stage. First, the President has underlined the importance he attaches to his objectives in the field of controlling inflation, developing markets and privatising industry. We fully support these efforts through our bilateral programmes, through the European Community, the IMF, the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

    Second, following from that, we both seek conditions which will boost trade and investment in Russia and we are giving this special emphasis. Mr Shokhin and Mr Heseltine, the President of the Board of Trade, have today signed an economic cooperation agreement, they have set up a new United Kingdom/Russia steering committee on trade and investment which has already met once and which brings together Ministers and businessmen. Our 280 million pounds sterling export credit cover for the former Soviet Union is now ready for allocation. Several major projects involving British companies are looking promising and are strongly supported by the President of the Board of Trade.

    Indeed, the President and I can announce, following the discussions between the President of the Board of Trade and the Russian Deputy Prime Minister, initial arrangements for the allocation of export credit guarantees for Russia. We agreed that subject to agreement between the parties concerned, the following projects should proceed: the John Brown Gasprom Polyethelene complex at Noviurengoy is to go ahead with some urgency with ECGD credit support. Gasprom will place orders with Rolls Royce for replacement gas turbines and parts for main transition lines and that will be done on a cash basis. Following further clarification of the details, a new terminal building at Domidanova Airport and the extension of the Comstar telephone project will also go ahead with ECGD support. All of these projects must depend on final contract terms.

    I am pleased also that the President has informed the Russian Federation that they intend to begin to repay the outstanding debts of the former Soviet Union to British firms shortly. They intend to make first payments to smaller British companies.

    Thirdly, President Yeltsin and I have agreed that we want to strengthen links between the European Community and Russia. Britain is pressing for the freest possible trade. We want to see negotiations for a partnership and cooperation agreement completed as soon as possible and this will start the process of trade liberalisation and build up dialogue on international questions.

    Fourthly, we look forward to the benefits technical assistance will bring in such areas as developing financial and private sector activity. Britain has a triple commitment, we shall play a full part in the new consultative group convened by the World Bank at Russia’s request. We are major contributors to the Community’s technical assistance programme, the largest of its kind, worth 450 million Ecu this year alone. And the British Know-How Fund for this region has made an excellent start and I am announcing today that we shall extend it beyond the existing three years and are committed to doubling its size.

    Fifthly, the problem of nuclear power stations needs more urgent treatment. The European Community has earmarked substantial funds, we are urging faster delivery of practical help. I have also offered British help in waste management regulations. A bilateral nuclear energy agreement is close to completion.

    Sixthly, we shall extend our close foreign policy cooperation, based on UN Security Council membership. Conflict and instability in regions neighbouring Russia is a particular concern and we shall work together to enhance the efforts of the United Nations and the CSCE. Both can assist, for example, in the Baltic States where I believe that Britain and her partners can help very actively in the search for solutions.

    Seventh, we are consigning the Cold War to history, our citizens can now travel freely in each other’s country. We are making joint arrangements to investigate allegations concerning British prisoners of war and our military staffs are working ever more closely together. We have signed today two important defence agreements on the transport of nuclear weapons and the expansion of contacts.

    Eighth, the Defence Secretary has offered Defence Minister Grachev help on the resettlement of Russian military officers. This new initiative brings together the MOD’s experience in resettling UK personnel, Know-How Fund money for business oriented retraining and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s readiness to consider providing capital to help new enterprises established by Russian ex-servicemen.

    This visit has not yet reached its half-way point and President Yeltsin has a series of very important meetings still to come. But I think I have said enough already to show that our talks have, as always, produced very significant results. And I conclude what I began by saying at the outset, that the President and his colleagues are very welcome guests indeed in the United Kingdom and to say, in conclusion, that I have been very happy to accept the President’s invitation to visit Russia at a date to be agreed in the future.

    PRESIDENT YELTSIN:

    I thank you, Mr Prime Minister, for your statement. I must say that today is really an historic occasion for relations between Russia and the United Kingdom. We have just signed the treaty on the principles governing relations between the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and it is difficult to over-estimate the significance of that document. It provides a legal framework for the firm resolve of our two countries to make full use of the huge potential of mutually beneficial and fruitful cooperation to the benefit of our two peoples.

    In the field of international security and control over weapons our two countries intend to work together to effectively reduce arms and promote disarmament to strengthen trust and confidence in the military field. In the sphere of economics it is our goal to create favourable conditions for closer cooperation of the businessmen of the two countries in various industries for the benefit of our two peoples.

    We believe that we shall build our relations on the basis of friendship, peace, close cooperation, extensive and reliable partnership. The era of confrontation has been committed to the past and the strategy of whipping up military hysteria, the policy of ideological intolerance, has also been committed to the heap of history. The new and democratic Russia will build its relations with the outside world on the basis of the universally recognised norms of international law and human morality. In the field of international security we shall regard this treaty as an extensive programme for joint actions between Russia and Great Britain because I believe that this document will be a document to guide this and the coming generations of the Russians and the people of Britain because the noble aims of that document is to promote and strengthen relations of peace and friendship between our two countries and peoples.

    We shall actively work to promote contacts and exchanges in the field of culture and education and in the human [indistinct] sphere in general. In its significance, its scope and the prospects it is opening, this is a document of extraordinary importance, not only for bilateral relations between our two countries but also for the European and international environment in general. Our cooperation does not damage any other country. I am convinced that the closer working together of such powers as Russia and Great Britain will promote international stability and peace and is in the best interests of the international community. We are firmly committed to the goals and principles of the United Nations Charter and on the papers of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

    Back in 1766, on the eve of the signing of the first Russo/British treaty, the head of the Russian diplomacy, Earl Panin [phon] referred to Britain as an old and natural ally of Russia and he also said that Russia cherishes friendship and mutual trust and confidence with Britain. He stressed this is our way of thinking and this is the guiding thread of our behaviour towards this country.

    Today, relations between Russia and Great Britain are taking a new stride. But, as 226 years ago, Russia reiterates that its strategic purpose in relations with Britain is achieving real allied relationship and sincere friendship. Our joint history is not rich in documents of that sort, we [indistinct] value we attach to the treaty we have signed today. What is most important today is to give it specific and real content and make it work. In order to make it work, in order to get benefits from it, our people should feel its real fruits and for that we require the efforts by all of us, politicians and businessmen, people of culture and science and of ordinary citizens, we bear the huge responsibility for the destinies of the Russian and British peoples for their life today and for the life of generations to come. I express my firm confidence that we shall be as good as the tasks that we have been instructed to deal with.

    And in conclusion may I also say that I have invited the Prime Minister, Mr Major, to pay a return official visit to Russia. As you have just heard, he has said that he is accepting the invitation and he added the usual proviso that the time of the visit will be confirmed through diplomatic channels.

    Today we have signed in fact not one but six most important documents: the treaty on the principle of relations; the agreement on economic cooperation; the agreement on the establishment of a direct communications link between the Kremlin and No 10 Downing Street; the memorandum on the programme of bilateral Russo/British military contacts for the years 1993 and 1994; the memorandum of understanding on the assistance to Russia in safe transportation of the nuclear weapons reduced in order to speed up its dismantling and destruction; and the last is the memorandum of understanding in the field of air aviation safety.

    All in all during today’s discussion the Prime Minister and I have covered both in our private discussions and in the plenary session with the attendance of the delegations twenty items of various nature and I must say that the discussions which we have held and the agreements that we have reached today will provide a strong impetus and impulse for the further development of close cooperation between the two great powers – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Russian Federation.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Russian TV):

    Mr. Prime Minister, when holding talks today with the Russian delegation and signing the documents with the Russian President, were you setting ground for a relationship of partnership or alliance between the two great nations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We were setting out to create a new and improved relationship between the United Kingdom and Russia. Over many generations, the relationship has been fractured with mistrust and with difficulties. We believe Russia has begun a new future, a democratic future, and President Yeltsin and I agreed in January that we would set the framework for a range of international agreements. The treaty we signed today and the other bilateral agreements are the fruits of that agreement that we made in January and I believe that it does set the groundwork for a better relationship between the United Kingdom and Russia than we have known for many generations. It is by no means the end of the relationship. It is setting the ground-rules for an ever closer and improving relationship between our two countries and I have no doubt that that is what we will be able to achieve.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton – Sky TV):

    I imagine both your peoples are most concerned about the state of the economy, I wonder if I could ask you both to talk about the prospects as you see them in your countries over the next year and whether the Prime Minister stands by his promises during the election not to increase taxes? [Laughter]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you know very well, Adam, for I have expressed it often enough, the prospects I see for the United Kingdom economy but the Chancellor will set out all that in the Autumn Statement and other matters too towards the end of this week and I think you had better wait for that.

    PRESIDENT YELTSIN:

    For the Russian economy the year of 1992 is a difficult year indeed. On January 2, 1992 the economic reform was launched and I must say today that the greatest difficulties are behind us. Of course, the problems remain and things are yet difficult in Russia but I want to repeat that the greatest difficulties are already behind us.

    In February, March, April and May and in October, we had prophecies that the economy of Russia would collapse; it is still there and it is going strong. Our output, true, is falling but we have instituted stringent budgetary controls; we have raised our taxes; and we are taking every measure in order to improve the functioning of our economy.

    We are going to lower taxes; for instance, as of January 1, 1993 our Value Added Tax, which today stands at 28%, will go down to 20% and our tax on profits will also be reduced; the number of percentage points by which it will be reduced is still a matter of discussion.

    QUESTION: [originally in Russian, but also rephrased by the questioner in English]

    My question was the assessment by Mr President of the grade of understanding concerning the domestic problems of Russia including economic and financial problems.

    PRESIDENT YELTSIN:

    I have visited many countries on official visits and without casting a shadow over any of the visits paid by me so far, I would like you to know that today we have covered a wide field of questions and we raised many points with the Prime Minister but there was not one single point on which we differed. Indeed, this is a very remarkable occasion because for the two countries which until very recently were regarding each other as potential enemies, one of the countries being a communist totalitarian regime and the other a truly democratic country, it is really a unique thing to witness that today they have no differences over which to disagree.

    We discussed a whole gamut of subjects – political, financial, environmental, organisational, military – and we have found that after proper discussion and debate we could agree. We went from general political matters to specific matters of economic cooperation and speeding up the economic progress of our two countries and we agreed every time. What is remaining now is to translate into life the understandings that the two governments have reached.

    I would like to take this occasion to thank personally the Prime Minister, Mr. Major, for his profound understanding of Russia, of its reforms because the reforms in Russia are unique and I would also like to thank him for the understanding that he displayed towards the President of Russia.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Munich – 8 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Munich, held on Wednesday 8th July 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what do you expect to tell Mr Yeltsin today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we want to hear from Mr Yeltsin how his reform programme is proceeding, I think there is agreement now on the first credit tranche from the IMF, so there is quite stiff conditionality attached to it. I think we will want to discuss how the reform programme is proceeding, not just in general terms but what specifically Mr Yeltsin sees happening next week, next month and in the months immediately ahead, it is a crucial critical period.

    QUESTION:

    Is there a worry that he will be demanding almost a bottomless commitment to aid?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I do not think so, I do not believe that will be the case, I have no doubt that Mr Yeltsin will set out the very difficult circumstances he faces, we all sympathise with that, the position is indeed extremely difficult. But I think it is really a question of examining the difficulties, looking at the conditionality attached to the first tranche of the IMF loan and pitching our minds forward to see what might happen in the future.

    QUESTION:

    How disappointed are you at the failure to make progress on the GATT negotiations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not know that it is entirely true to say there has been failure to make progress, I think it was absolutely essential that the GATT negotiations came on the agenda here, I think it would have been intolerable for us to have come here, the leaders of the seven industrial nations, and not faced squarely the difficulties that actually existed in the GATT Round. We gave our commitment to examine this in the past, I for one was determined that we would examine it and we have. It has not been possible to make a full breakthrough, I think that was always to be expected, there were parties who were part of the negotiation who were not here. But there is now no doubt, not a shred of doubt, in anyone’s mind about the importance of the GATT Round and particularly the importance that the British attach to it. We should have had an agreement by now, we have not got an agreement by now, it remains imperative that we get an agreement and we will push, and push, and push, until eventually some time later this year an agreement is reached, it must be, and the sooner the better.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 February 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Russia

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what information he has on Russia’s plans to continue its nuclear warhead testing programme to maintain the safety and reliability of its nuclear weapon deterrent.

    The Prime Minister : President Yeltsin’s statement of 29 January confirmed that Russia will adhere to the one-year moratorium on testing announced in October 1991. President Yeltsin also called for other nuclear powers to refrain from testing. The United Kingdom has to carry out nuclear tests from time to time to maintain the effectiveness and safety of our nuclear deterrent.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on President Yeltsin – 3 February 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on 3rd February 1992 on President Yeltsin and the UN Security Council.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about President Yeltsin’s visit to London on 30 January and about the special meeting of the UN Security Council in New York on 31 January. I was accompanied to New York by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Both meetings came at an important time in Russia’s relationship with the rest of the world and at a critical time for world peace and stability. Russia has, in President Yeltsin’s own words, thrown off the shackles of communism. She remains a nuclear super-power. As such, and as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, she has world responsibilities. It is essential for our own peace and security that Russia continues to play the positive role on which President Gorbachev embarked and which President Yeltsin is set to continue and to develop. I believe that we should offer them our support in this.

    I called the meeting in New York during our chairmanship of the Security Council so that the council could meet at the highest level to reaffirm and develop its commitment to peacekeeping and peacemaking. The timing was particularly apt following the appointment of a new Secretary-General and with Russia taking the seat in the Security Council formerly held by the Soviet Union. The meeting was successful, and I should like to highlight the key points.

    This was the first time in the 47 years of its history that the UN had met at the top level. For the first time ever, the Heads of State and Government of the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain sat around the same table and pledged themselves, with the other members of the council, to collective security, to international law and to our commitments under the United Nations’ charter.

    A statement was agreed by all the members of the Security Council. Copies are in the Library of the House. In it we reaffirmed that all disputes between states should be resolved peacefully in accordance with the provisions of the charter. We committed ourselves to the fight against terrorism. We asked the Secretary-General to make recommendations for a more effective role for the United Nations as peacekeeper and as peacemaker. Under article 99 of the charter, the Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which, in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. We hope the new Secretary-General will use those powers. He will report to us within six months with his recommendations. We committed ourselves to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation and to the conclusion of a chemical weapons convention this year. The council endorsed the idea put forward by the British Government, and recently endorsed by the General Assembly, of a UN register of conventional arms transfers. During his visit to London, President Yeltsin noted that Britain had been the first country to denounce the August coup, and the first to recognise Russia; the first to propose Russian membership of the International Monetary Fund; the first to propose an April deadline for that membership; and the first to support a stabilisation fund for the rouble.

    It is essential that Russia join the IMF at the earliest opportunity, and I believe that a stabilisation fund may need to follow if Russia is to have a prospect of establishing a successful market economy. There is, of course, a financial cost in this, but the cost of failure and a return to dictatorship and the cold war would be infinitely higher. It is in our national interest and in the interests of the west as a whole to help Russia, and we shall continue to take a lead in doing so. I undertook to make it one of the priorities of our presidency of the European Community later this year to carry through an improved trade and co-operation agreement with Russia.

    In our discussion of arms control issues, President Yeltsin committed Russia to further significant reductions in the Russian strategic and international arsenal. I told him that we had already committed ourselves to a cut of one half in our sub-strategic nuclear weapons and to smaller conventional forces. I told him also that Britain’s only strategic weapon would be the minimum deterrent constituted by Trident.

    President Yeltsin accepted that Trident was indeed a minimum deterrent and that the focus of arms control negotiations should be on the arsenal of the two super-powers. We agreed to co-operate in handling surplus Soviet weapons and in safeguarding nuclear materials. I offered to send a technical mission to Moscow to assess the immediate needs at first hand. I have also offered to send a small number of officials from the Ministry of Defence to the Russian Ministry of Defence to advise on the restructuring and control and financing of armed forces in a democratic society. We discussed the problem of the possible leakage of expertise from Russia in the field of weapons of mass destruction. President Yeltsin has made proposals for handling this problem, and we have offered our help as part of an international effort. The President and I agreed to establish a secure telephone link between our two offices. This is not meant as a crisis hot-line ; it will enable us to conduct the significant amount of business we have to undertake.

    We signed a joint declaration–the text of which is in the Library of the House–on relations between our two countries. It will form the basis of a treaty which the President and I hope to sign during the official visit to Britain which he will make later this year. It will be the first such treaty since 1766.

    This is a time of great hope in international affairs, but also of uncertainty and potential instability. The two meetings on which I have reported to the House have shown our determination to work for a safer world and a new partnership with Russia in the cause of peace.