The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Bosnia

  • Mr Major’s Opening Address to the London Peace Implementation Conference on Bosnia – 4 December 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening address to the London Peace Implementation Conference on Bosnia, held at Lancaster House in London on Wednesday 4th December 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Could I begin by extending a warm welcome to the fifty-six delegations of the Peace Implementation Council assembled here today.

    This is the fourth time in as many years that I have had the pleasure of welcoming many of you to London for a key international conference on the future of Bosnia.

    So to all of you who are returning, it is excellent to see you again. And to those of you here for the first time, it is very good to have you here.

    When we last met here in Lancaster House a year ago – for the first ever session of the Peace Implementation Council – the conflict in Bosnia had just ended. It had claimed over 200,000 lives; and it had forced more than two million people to flee their homes.

    At that meeting, we set ourselves the task of ensuring that the guns remained silent. And we embarked on the massive task of implementing the peace settlement and rebuilding a shattered nation.

    One year on, we should not understate the achievements:

    – the guns have stayed silent. The armies have disengaged and have returned to barracks. Heavy weapons have been put in cantonments;

    – national, entity and cantonal elections have been held;

    – reconstruction has begun, with hundreds of millions of dollars spent over the last twelve months;

    – a quarter of a million refugees have returned to their homes;

    – Sarajevo, for so long a city under siege and a symbol of the Bosnian war, has been transformed;

    – the new Presidency has begun its work and agreement has been reached on the structure of the Council of Ministers.

    This is a substantial record.

    It would be easy to claim that we should have done better, that more refugees should have returned, or that the new central institutions are not yet working.

    But that would be to undervalue how much has been achieved. And it would fail to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of so many different organisations and individuals over the last year:

    – the drafters of the Peace Agreement who, under American leadership and with Contact Group support, drove the negotiations to a successful conclusion;

    – the 60,000 strong NATO-led implementation force, drawn from over thirty nations, which represents the biggest such effort that NATO has ever undertaken. It proved itself a success – and has provided an historic turning point in NATO-Russia co-operation;

    – the OSCE, which has organised elections involving about two million people;

    – the World Bank and European Commission which have together led the reconstruction effort;

    – the 1,500 plus members of the International Police Task Force who have been active throughout Bosnia, monitoring, training and improving police standards;

    – and the UNHCR, who have been taking forward the difficult and complex task of refugee return.

    I should like to pay a particular tribute to Carl Bildt, who as High Representative, has presided over the civilian side of peace implementation with exceptional energy and dedication, and formidable political skills. He has cajoled the international community and Bosnia’s leaders in equal part, driving forward the peace process.

    Could I therefore say to you, Carl, on behalf of all at this Conference, how much we have admired and appreciated your efforts over the last 12 months. No-one could have done more than you to consolidate peace in Bosnia: and we all welcome your agreement to stay on for a few months into 1997.

    Last month’s meeting in Paris set the framework for action to consolidate peace in Bosnia over the next two years. Today’s conference focuses in on the next 12 months:

    – on the priorities for Bosnia’s leaders;

    – and on the tasks and commitments of the international community.

    Just before coming here, I was glad to have the opportunity of a talk with Bosnia’s new Presidency. I would like to underline to this wider audience a little of what I have just said privately.

    None of us at this conference underestimate the task you face. You are rebuilding a nation, only a few months after a bitter war, with the wounds and divisions not yet healed.

    But you were elected by the Bosnian people as their investment in and commitment to a brighter future.

    They have placed their trust in you.

    They want you to help them restore their homes, reunite their families and recreate the communities in which they once lived in peace.

    And they want, above all, to be sure that the war which disfigured Bosnia’s past will never return.

    This is a heavy responsibility. And none of it will be easy:

    – it will require difficult decisions, difficult compromises, difficult concessions;

    – it will require the statesmanship to put the wider interests of your people above short-term or factional concerns;

    – and it will require concentration on the substance – on the establishment of your Council of Ministers and of your Central Bank for instance – not on the trivia of protocol.

    Over 50 states and international institutions have come to London with one objective in mind: to decide how we can best help you in the future.

    We are united in our wish to see Bosnia and Herzegovina succeed, so that you are able to assume in full your rightful place in Europe. The UK has devoted huge resources, both financial and human, to Bosnia over the last few years. We are now planning, with our allies and partners, to maintain troops on Bosnian soil into 1998.

    I am sure I am not alone in saying that a peaceful and secure future for Bosnia is a key foreign policy objective – and that our relations with Bosnia’s neighbours will be conditioned by their support for this objective.

    But the international community’s efforts in themselves will not be enough. There has to be a real commitment to peace and reconciliation within Bosnia.

    And as representatives of the different communities, the people of Bosnia and the international community look to you to lead the way.

    What precisely do we look for? The recent agreement on the structure of the Council of Ministers represents excellent and very welcome progress. I know that you are working to nominate individuals to their Ministerial posts as soon as possible. It is hard to over-emphasise the importance of your establishing quickly a fully-functioning government with which the international community can deal.

    Economic regeneration also has to be a key priority.

    In 1996, the international community took the lead in kick-starting the economy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Dedicated efforts by thousands of technical experts, NGOs and IFOR soldiers have restored some of the basic infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands of people will benefit from the return of electricity this winter. Thousands of children have restarted their education.

    But there is a limit to what the international community can do.

    It is most important that next year, Bosnia and Herzegovina should accept the primary responsibility for your own economic development. Judging by my own visits, at least, what ordinary people want more than anything else – there as elsewhere – are jobs and a decent standard of living. These modest aspirations can only be achieved by establishing effective institutions and sound, market-based economic policies.

    But such policies can only work if people, goods and capital move freely throughout the country. There will be no economic revival while a businessman in Banja Luka cannot pick up the telephone and call Sarajevo.

    Moreover, without the right legal framework, the inward investment so crucial to economic recovery will tend to stay away.

    The international financial institutions stand ready to help. The international community will continue to provide support. But we look to you to take the lead:

    – to set up the Central Bank;

    – to pass the necessary legislation;

    – and to recognise that in today’s open trading environment, economic cooperation is not an option but a necessity.

    We look forward to 1997 also being the year in which large numbers of refugees start to return. In 1996, we achieved a great deal for those already living in Bosnia. But there are hundreds of thousands more in neighbouring states or further afield, who want to return but are unable to do so. We must address their fears and problems.

    We need a comprehensive approach, which recognises the linkages between the various refugee groups in the region.

    And we need to create conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina in which refugees feel safe to return. This means:

    – full respect for human rights;

    – police forces working within international democratic policing standards;

    – and genuine freedom of movement. One year on from the signature of the Peace Agreement, ordinary Bosnians are still afraid to cross the line between the two entities. This cannot continue.

    I will identify one further priority among the many for 1997. This is full implementation of the arms control commitments in the Peace Agreement, within the agreed deadlines.

    The achievement of a sensible balance in armaments in the region is self-evidently necessary for future peace and security. Everyone recognises this: that is why it was agreed at Dayton.

    But follow-up has been less than whole-hearted. This cannot be allowed to slip. The international community is determined to maintain pressure on this issue until we have achieved our objectives.

    How can the London Conference help with these priorities?

    The aim in the next day and a half is to have a detailed debate on all aspects of peace implementation, drawing on the extensive expertise of those around this table.

    I suggest that we need to identify precise, practical, tasks and targets in all areas, and commit ourselves to accomplishing them.

    So, within the framework of the Peace Agreement, we shall be looking for a series of detailed political undertakings from Bosnia’s leaders. We hope that the representatives of the Entities at this meeting will be ready to make commitments on areas within Entity competence.

    The international community will in turn undertake to provide substantial further help and resources, both human and financial. But this international help will be conditional on the willingness within Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement all aspects of the Peace Agreement.

    If we can work together to meet these shared goals over the next 12 months, we shall have taken a crucial and irreversible step towards securing Bosnia and Herzegovina’s future, as a nation able to stand by itself, and to look after its own affairs.

    Later in this conference, we will hear from Hans Van den Broek about the European Union’s support for the peace process.

    This is a key aspect, because Bosnia and Herzegovina’s destiny lies in Europe. All of us look forward to the day when Bosnia and Herzegovina can take its place in European structures and institutions as a successful independent nation based upon the principles and values that we all support.

    Much must happen before this vision can be realised. But if we can achieve our objectives for this conference – and then, crucially, carry them through on the ground over the next twelve months – we shall have laid solid foundations for a peaceful and prosperous future for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    I wish you well in your deliberations.

  • Text of the Queen’s Speech – 23 October 1996

    Below is the text of the Queen’s Speech, held on 23rd October 1996.

    Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    The Duke of Edinburgh and I look forward to receiving the State Visits of His Excellency the President of Israel in February and of the President of Brazil in December next year. We also look forward to our visit to Canada in June and July and to our State Visits to Thailand later this month and to Pakistan and India in October next year, the fiftieth anniversary of their independence.

    National security continues to be of the highest importance. My Government will continue to play a major role in NATO’s adaptation and in decisions on its enlargement, and to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. The United Kingdom’s minimum nuclear deterrent will be maintained.

    Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a priority. Early provision will be made for the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. My Government will pursue negotiations on a Convention to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive purposes.

    In the European Union, my Government will work for an outcome to the Intergovernmental Conference which supports an outward-looking, economically liberal and flexible Union based on a partnership of nations. They will promote policies designed to improve the Union’s competitiveness and economic well-being. They will work towards the opening of accession negotiations with countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

    My Government will promote the further global liberalisation of trade, in particular at the Ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation, and will continue to work for transatlantic free trade in this context.

    My Government will continue actively to support peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, encouraging full compliance with the Peace Agreement and promoting reconciliation between the former warring parties.

    Support will continue for the search for a durable peace in the Middle East.

    My Government will continue to work for a successful transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1997. They will work on behalf of its people to preserve their way of life and to promote the territory’s continued stability and prosperity, founded on a high degree of autonomy and the rule of law.

    Preparations will be made for the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government to be held in Edinburgh in October 1997, and for the second Asia-Europe Meeting in London in 1998.

    Support for the United Nations remains a priority. My Government will continue to work for a United Nations that is more effective, efficient and responsive to the needs of its Member States.

    The fight against terrorism, organised crime and drug misuse and trafficking will remain a priority as will action to protect and improve the environment.

    My Government will continue to promote respect for human rights and the international rule of law.

    A substantial aid programme will be maintained to help improve the quality of life in poorer countries, by contributing to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering.

    In Northern Ireland, my Government’s priority will be to maintain progress towards peace, prosperity and reconciliation, based on a comprehensive political settlement commanding widespread support. They stand ready to introduce legislation to provide for the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives in Northern Ireland. They will maintain close and friendly relations with the Republic of Ireland.

    Members of the House of Commons,

    Estimates for the public service will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    My Government will continue with firm financial policies designed to support sustained economic growth and rising prosperity, while maintaining low inflation. Fiscal policy will continue to be set to bring the public sector borrowing requirement back towards balance over the medium term. My Government will reduce further the share of national income taken by the public sector. They will continue to promote enterprise and further improve the performance of the economy with the aim of creating the strongest industrial economy in Western Europe in the medium term and doubling living standards over the next twenty-five years. They will promote fewer, better and simpler regulations to reduce unnecessary burdens on business.

    My Government will continue to support competitiveness through advancing knowledge, improving educational and skill levels and promoting a flexible, efficient labour market. Legislation will be introduced to widen choice and diversity, improve discipline and raise standards in schools.

    A Bill will be introduced to reform the sentencing and supervision of serious, dangerous and persistent offenders so as to provide greater protection for the public. Legislation will be introduced to support the fight against organised crime, including establishing a National Crime Squad. A Bill will be introduced to strengthen controls on the ownership of firearms.

    Legislation will be brought forward to strengthen the powers to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping. A Bill will again be brought before you to authorise the construction and operation of a high speed rail link between London and the Channel Tunnel.

    Legislation will be introduced to improve and develop primary health care services. A Bill will be brought forward to combat social security fraud.

    Legislation will be introduced to implement proposals contained in the English and Welsh Rural White Papers in relation to parish and community councils and to provide rate relief for small village shops.

    In Scotland legislation will be introduced to abolish automatic early release from prison and to make other changes in the criminal justice system to improve public protection. A Bill will be brought forward to enable the transfer of publicly-owned crofting estates to crofting trusts.

    My Government will introduce legislation to enable reform of the procedures of the civil courts, and other measures of law reform.

    Other measures will be laid before you.

    My Government will also publish Bills in draft for consultation on the introduction of voluntary identity cards and on measures to help people make better provision for their long term care needs in old age.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 July 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Group of Seven Summit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (David Buchan, Financial Times):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

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

    QUESTION (Barry Wood, VOA):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Ian Black, Guardian):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (David Smith, Sunday Times):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 June 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th June 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kyle of Lochalsh

    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to the Kyle of Lochalsh.

    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

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

     

    Bosnia

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will consult other Heads of Government about extending the implementation force involvement in former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Under the terms of the Bosnia peace agreement, and the United Nations Security Council resolution 1031, IFOR’s mandate expires in December. We expect implementation force IFOR to have successfully completed its military mission by that time. When IFOR leaves, we expect the leaders elected in the forthcoming Bosnian elections to take on responsibility for Bosnia’s future. We remain in constant contact with other Governments on this and other Bosnia-related subjects.

     

    Hong Kong (Beef Ban)

    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Prime Minister what consultations took place between Her Majesty’s Government and the Governor of Hong Kong before the decision was taken by the Hong Kong authorities to ban the entry of British beef into the colony.

    The Prime Minister: Hong Kong has autonomy in all trade matters. The Hong Kong Government’s suspension of the import of British beef was imposed after the European Union’s decision to prohibit the export of British beef. In announcing the suspension, the Hong Kong Government made clear that they had taken this decision to restore confidence in the beef market in Hong Kong, and that they did not consider it necessary to restrict the import of British beef on health grounds.

     

    Conservative Party (Donations)

    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make representations to the chairman of the Conservative party about the conclusions of the Touche Ross report to the Conservative party of July 1993 in respect of donations to that party of fraudulently obtained money.

    The Prime Minister: This does not fall within my responsibilities as Prime Minister.

     

    Dr. Trifkovic and Mr. Zametica

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what meetings his Ministers have had with (a) Dr. Svdja Trifkovic and (b) Jovan Zametica; and what was discussed.

    The Prime Minister: None. Mr. Zametica was present when Rajko Kasagic, former Prime Minister of the Republika Srpska, called on my right hon. and learned Friend, the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development during a visit to London on 29 April.

     

    Northern Ireland (Talks)

    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the advantages for the success of the all-party talks of Sinn Fein taking part in them.

    The Prime Minister: The talks will hold out the best prospects for a settlement if they are as inclusive as possible, but only on condition that all those participating are committed to exclusively peaceful methods. We and the Irish Government have expressed the hope that all parties with an electoral mandate will take part in the talks, including Sinn Fein; but we have agreed that they must be limited to parties establishing their commitment to peaceful methods, and that participation by Sinn Fein requires unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994.

     

    Pay Review Bodies

    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names and occupations of the current members of and the terms of reference of (a) the Review Body on Senior Salaries, (b) the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine, (c) the Review on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration, (d) the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay and (e) the School Teachers’ Review Body.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 21 May 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 15 May, Official Report, column 457, and to the terms of reference contained in the 1996 reports of the review bodies, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Personal details such as occupations, when published, may be obtained from the standard works of reference.

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

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

    QUESTION (Mr Naulius, Estonia):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION (Mr Van der Linden, The Netherlands):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Mr Jack Thompson, United Kingdom)

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Mr Parisi, Italy):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Leader of French Delegation to Assembly):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Mr Pavlidos, Greece):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Ambassadors, Ladies and Gentlemen;

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

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

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

    Britain was a founding member.

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

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

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

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

    By any measure, Britain more than pulls its weight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In short, we have:

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

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

    – improved inter-service operability.

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

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

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

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

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

    – that are credible and practical;

    – that our citizens can rely on.

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

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

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

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

    First, maintaining effective military forces.

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

    Second, creating a Europe whole and free.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    – It is bringing former adversaries together in joint operations.

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

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

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

    It will certainly not be a free lunch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We must make the most of them:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What do we need? We need arrangements that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Bosnia Peace Agreement Signing Ceremony – 14 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Bosnia Peace Agreement Signing Ceremony, held at the Elysee Palace in Paris on Thursday 14th December 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I join others in thanking Jacques Chirac and the French Government for their hospitality.

    This is a fitting place for the Signing Ceremony.

    French forces, with those of the United Kingdom, have formed the backbone of the United Nations operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina over the past three years.

    Our troops have worked together in the hazardous tasks of peacekeeping and humanitarian relief. And they have suffered losses together.

    So it was especially heart-warming for us to see the release of your two brave pilots. Your firm stand was entirely vindicated.

    Mr President, much of Central and Eastern Europe has moved successfully from authoritarian rule to democracy.

    But of course such a profound change has produced areas of tension, instability and disorder. In the former Yugoslavia, sadly, it led to war.

    The international community could not prevent that war from breaking out. But it has worked patiently for peace.

    That peace has been won at a terrible price. One in twenty of the former inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina has been killed. Over a quarter of the population have had to flee from their homes – homes which are mostly now in ruins.

    The conflict is over, but the job is only half done.

    Ahead lies hope but not yet fulfilment.

    Success will depend crucially on respect for the fundamental principles of this Agreement:

    – maintaining Bosnia and Herzegovina as a single multi-ethnic state;
    – providing for the safe return of refugees and turning away from the abomination of ethnic cleansing;
    – ensuring that the human rights of all the people of Bosnia fully and equally respected;
    – and bringing to justice those guilty of crimes against humanity.

    The Agreement signed today places clear and detailed obligations upon each of the parties. In their own interests, they must respect and implement them scrupulously.

    But the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina will not be alone in carrying through this Peace Agreement.

    From the time of the first London Conference in August 1992, the international community has made a huge commitment to them.

    Successive teams of negotiators – Lord Carrington and Cyrus Vance, Lord Owen and Thorvald Stoltenberg, Carl Bildt, the United Nations and the Contact Group – did not spare themselves in laying the groundwork for the peace finally achieved.

    Without a massive relief operation through UNPROFOR, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other international and national agencies, the war’s dreadful toll would have been far higher.

    We must now make no less massive a commitment to the implementation of peace. 13,000 British troops will join the implementation force of some 60,000 overall – the biggest land operation undertaken in half a century of NATO’s existence.

    With the backing of the Peace Implementation Council set up last week, Carl Bildt will coordinate the vital task of re-establishing legitimate political structures and restoring normal civilian life.

    And the groundwork is now being laid for economic reconstruction, as a joint effort between Europe, North America, other interested countries, and the people of Bosnia themselves under, the coordination of the World Bank,

    It is now up to all of us – to the governments and peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and of Croatia, and to the external powers and international organisations – to turn ceasefire into peace, peace into a lasting settlement, and the countries of the former Yugoslavia into a stable and prosperous part of the European family.

    It will not be easy.

    But I profoundly believe it is possible.

    We must turn that possibility into reality.

    And today’s ceremony is an important landmark in that process.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Opening of the Bosnian Peace Conference – 8 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the opening of the Bosnia Peace Implementation Conference on Friday 8th December 1995, held at Lancaster House in London.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am grateful to you – the representatives of over 50 countries and organisations – for coming to this third London Conference, and I welcome you most warmly to Lancaster House.

    You have come with a serious purpose.

    The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina has claimed over 200,000 lives.

    It has been one of the most devastating wars of the past half century, and by far the most serious conflict in Europe since the Second World War.

    Out of a population of four and a half million people, more than two million have been forced to flee their homes. A great many of their houses, their towns and villages, have been razed to the ground or rendered uninhabitable.

    Families have been broken up. Many survivors have been disabled.

    No-one who lived in this beautiful and once thriving corner of south-eastern Europe can have been untouched by the trauma of three years of savage fighting.

    But the conflict is over. The guns are now silent. Next week, the peace agreement will be signed in Paris.

    Our task, today and tomorrow, is to make sure that the guns remain silent; that the Dayton accords are put into effect; that war does not resume through any error or omission on our part.

    Today, even before the final signature of the agreement, we must begin the huge job of implementing and consolidating peace, and of rebuilding a country.

    Let me extend a particularly warm welcome to the Foreign Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, of Croatia and of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

    Making peace required courage, flexibility, and a willingness to give ground from the leaders of all of the parties.

    Keeping it will need tolerance, forgiveness, discipline and the readiness to make a fresh start.

    No-one underestimates the demands this will make on all of your peoples.

    The wounds of this war will not heal easily.

    But heal they must – and they can.

    In the Spring of last year, I met soldiers from the opposing Croat and Bosnian Government forces in central Bosnia. Men who, weeks before, had been under orders to kill each other. I saw them policing the new ceasefire in that region – in a remarkably friendly spirit.

    That ceasefire held.

    And the wider peace negotiated at Dayton must hold.

    It will hold so long as the Dayton commitments are honoured:

    – The commitment to keep Sarajevo as a united city within the Federation. That carries obligations on all sides. Each side must work with the others to allow all the inhabitants of Sarajevo to live together in safety and security.

    – The commitments on the separation of forces and removal of heavy weapons.

    – The commitment to negotiate an arms control regime and other confidence building measures. The Bonn Conference will take this work forward.

    – The commitment to respect human rights and ensure unrestricted access for humanitarian work.

    – The commitment to develop the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina to help manage reconstruction within the country and its relations with the outside world.

    – The commitment to create conditions for free and fair elections by next summer.

    – And the commitment to help refugees return freely and safely.

    We are not asking you to act alone.

    The international community has made a huge effort to save lives, help civilians, and negotiate peace over the past three years.

    The message of this Conference is that we are ready to make no less vast an effort to help you to entrench the peace, and to find stability and security within the European family and the United Nations.

    Let me now turn in more detail to the international community’s role.

    In their different ways, the countries and organisations at this Conference have helped to bring peace to Bosnia.

    Through many setbacks and in the face of great danger, national and international aid agencies kept the lifelines open.

    More than 200 people sacrificed their lives in the service of the United Nations and of the aid agencies.

    As we begin today a new and much more hopeful phase of the humanitarian operation in Bosnia, let us remember those who helped to make it possible through three long years of war, and particularly those who will not see the vindication of their brave efforts.

    Likewise, from the 1992 International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia onwards, efforts to negotiate peace never relented until they were crowned with success.

    We owe a debt of gratitude to all of those who took diplomatic action on our behalf – whether under the auspices of the United Nations, the European Union or the Contact Group.

    Now, in this third London Conference, we must harness the resources and capabilities of the international community in four main areas:

    – First, on the military side, those in command of the Implementation Force will shortly describe its mission. It will be important to ensure that military and civilian work is carefully co-ordinated.

    – Secondly, we are entering, as I have said, a new phase of the humanitarian operation. We shall examine how this is to be organised under the co-ordination of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, so that we can help refugees to return and ensure that human rights and human needs are protected.

    – Third, the supervision of the elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina will be a significant challenge for the Member States of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. An ambitious challenge and a vital task.

    – Finally, we shall discuss reconstruction. We do not aim to supplant the efforts of the Bosnian people themselves. They will wish to rebuild their own homes, and they have the pride and the skills to do so. But they clearly will need help and additional resources. We must start by identifying the needs and agreeing on the right mechanisms for meeting them. That will help to pave the way for the Pledging Conference which should follow at a later stage.

    The responsibility for pulling these strands together within Bosnia will fall on the “High Representative”. It is a task which will require exceptional energy and proven qualities of leadership. We are fortunate in having someone superbly qualified to act as the High Representative – in the former Prime Minister of Sweden, Mr Carl Bildt.

    I hope we can announce today that Carl Bildt will take on this task. He will deserve the confidence and respect of all of us. He deserves all the help we can give him.

    Conclusion

    Many of you came to our last Conference in this building a mere five months ago.

    We met then against a sombre and menacing background.

    How much has changed for the better in those five months.

    We took some tough decisions then, but they proved to be the right decisions.

    Today we must take one decision, above all: that peace in Bosnia cannot fail. That we cannot allow the nightmare of the past three years to return. That, in our commitment to a powerful implementation force and a huge civilian effort, we must make it unthinkable for anyone to drag Bosnia back to the edge of the abyss.

    Peace in Bosnia has been hard won. It has been dreadfully slow to come.

    It is undoubtedly fragile.

    But it is there, and each and every one of us must make sure that it lasts.

  • PMQT – 7 December 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th December 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Hood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

    Mr. Hood: Will the Prime Minister tell us who is running the Government this week? Is it proper for the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) to announce that the Government intend to publish a White Paper on Europe? If so, is that not further proof of the lurch to the right–or is the Prime Minister doing what he usually does: ruling nothing in, ruling nothing out and being decisively indecisive?

    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear this morning, we are examining all the issues that will come up in the intergovernmental conference, including whether it would be appropriate to have a White Paper.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present turmoil in France epitomises the potential social and political dangers of any attempt to shackle Britain to a single European currency or the social chapter, as is proposed by the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister: What it certainly shows, as my hon. Friend will be aware, is the difficulties that the present French Government have inherited from their socialist predecessors. If their predecessors had dealt with the underlying structural and fiscal problems at the time, the present French Government would not be facing this difficulty.

    Mr. Blair: I am surprised that the Prime Minister cannot tell us whether there will be a White Paper, but let me put this question to him and see whether he can answer it. Is it still the Government’s position that he will not rule out joining a single currency in the next Parliament?

    The Prime Minister: That is still the Government’s position, as I have made clear on a number of occasions.

    Mr. Blair: I think that that is a very important statement. The Prime Minister has said that he will not rule it out in the next Parliament. We know that that is not the position of the Welsh Secretary or of many of his Back Benchers. Will he tell us this, then: is that the position of the whole of his Government, including the Euro-sceptic members of the Cabinet?

    The Prime Minister: Of course it is the position of the whole Government and it has been repeatedly stated that that is the position of the whole Government. We have made that clear on a number of occasions, and nothing has changed.

    Mr. Robert Jackson: One of the conditions of the Dayton agreement is that all the parties should observe the European convention on human rights. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be somewhat paradoxical for British forces to be, in a sense, enforcing the European convention on human rights in Bosnia while we in Britain are contemplating withdrawal from that convention?

    The Prime Minister: We are certainly unhappy about some of the rulings made under the European convention on human rights. We have made that point and we will continue to do so. We were one of the founders of the European convention on human rights which, as my hon. Friend knows, is a quite separate matter from the European Court of Justice. That does not alter the fact that we and a number of other countries have been profoundly unhappy with some of its rulings. As I have said, we have made that point clear and will continue to do so.

    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister make it clear whether Britain will withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights?

    The Prime Minister: We have not said that we shall withdraw from the European convention on human rights. We have said that we are profoundly dissatisfied with some of the court’s judgments and that we propose to take that up with the European Commission of Human Rights and deal with it in some way in the future.

    Mr. David Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the end of this decade, a great many of our computers and those elsewhere will fail because they are not programmed to recognise the double zero of the year 2000? That will have immense and costly consequences for British business, small businesses and, perhaps, Government Departments. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government are aware of that and how they are responding to it?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful question. I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade examines the matter and responds to him.

     

    Q3. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

    Mr. Banks: When the Prime Minister writes his customary letter to Santa this Christmas, will he make it quite clear that he is not asking for a puppy? Will he make it clear that he would discourage anyone from giving a puppy as a present to a child this Christmas, because a puppy is for all the year, not just a Christmas present?

    When the Prime Minister has finished his Christmas list and is writing his resolutions for the new year, will he make a resolution to introduce legislation to ban puppy farms? Such legislation would win support on both sides of the House and outside.

    The Prime Minister: I hope that everyone who contemplates giving a pet as a present for Christmas bears in mind that it is a present for the long term, not just for the short term. I hope that people will be responsible in their present giving.

    Mr. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend surprised at the survey today which found that more than half of all private investors would remove their capital from Britain in the event of a Labour victory–or does he consider that that is the inevitable consequence of such a catastrophe?

    The Prime Minister: I cannot pretend to be surprised at that survey’s findings. I suspect that those surveyed have examined the likely implications of joining the social chapter and of the spending promises made by the Labour party and realised what they would do to taxation, competitiveness and employment.

     

    Q4. Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

    Mr. Bayley: As a parent of school-age children I am sure that I speak on behalf of many parents when I tell the Prime Minister that the Government have failed to convince the public or school caterers that British beef is safe. Will the Prime Minister, as a matter of urgency, make sure that the Department of Health issues genuinely independent advice about this matter to reassure parents?

    The Prime Minister: Of course this is an important matter for schools and for the safety of consumers as a whole. I have sought and received advice that there is currently no scientific evidence that BSE can be transmitted to humans or that eating beef causes CJD. That is not in question. I am also advised that beef is a safe and wholesome product. The chief medical officer’s advice is clear–there is no evidence that eating beef causes CJD in humans.

     

    Q5. Mr. Congdon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of teaching is crucial to improving standards and that the publication of test results is important in monitoring them? Does my right hon. Friend find it strange that the belated conversion of the Labour party to recognising the need for higher standards has not been matched in the past by its willingness to see the publication of test results? In fact, it has done everything to frustrate that.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a point that will be recognised by parents throughout the country. On this matter, the Opposition’s actions have frequently spoken a great deal louder than their words. During the past few years, they have opposed every measure that we have introduced to raise standards. They have described school league tables as political propaganda, test results as virtually useless, teaching children the basics as a fanatical doctrine–[Laughter.] Hon. Members may scoff, but they are scoffing at what their party and their Front Bench have said.

     

    Q6. Mr. Beggs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

    Mr. Beggs: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Northern Ireland students who have been accepted into universities in England to follow physiotherapy or other courses leading to para medical qualification should not be disadvantaged and should not be expected to pay the balance between their mandatory award and the fees charged by the universities, which sometimes amounts to more than £5,000? Will he consider the matter and ensure that Northern Ireland students are not less well off than students from the Irish Republic or the European Union? Will he endeavour to remove this perceived disadvantage?

    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly examine that matter. If the hon. Gentleman has pointed to a genuine disadvantage, I shall invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to examine it and see whether it can be corrected.

    Mr. Lidington: Which local education authority produced the worst results in the recently published GCSE league tables? What options would the Government want to be available to parents in that local council area who are dissatisfied with the education authority’s performance?

    The Prime Minister: I understand that the worst results were in Islington education authority. There are several options available to Islington. I hope that the education authority will try to correct what has gone wrong and improve the quality of education for all the children in Islington. Of course, there remains the option of grant-maintained schools, which many parents throughout the country rightly perceive as offering good education that they want their children to enjoy.

     

    Q7. Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

    Mr. McFall: In her Centrepoint speech this morning, Princess Diana highlighted the inadequacy of the present system for homeless young people forced to live on the streets. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to respond to that eloquent plea by providing further assistance for such young people so that the problem no longer blights British society?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have been dealing comprehensively with the problem for some time and have made remarkable improvements over the past few years. We are fully committed to ensuring that there is no necessity for some people to sleep rough. We very much hope that the culture, which has grown up among some people, of doing so can be changed and broken. The Government are providing about 5,000 places in permanent and temporary accommodation for people who otherwise would have to sleep rough. That is in addition to the outreach and resettlement services for homeless people living on the streets. There is no doubt that there has been a remarkable reduction in the number of people sleeping rough. Plans to eliminate that practice continue, and I look forward to that day being reached.

    Sir Teddy Taylor: I welcome very much what my right hon. Friend said about a possible White Paper on Europe. Does he agree that it would not only help to set out the Government’s basic objectives, but would draw to public attention the ever-widening gulf between the Government and the Opposition who, under their present leadership, are destined to surrender more of our liberty, power, jobs and freedom to Brussels?

    The Prime Minister: That policy is clear in many Opposition speeches, but it is not universal. They seem to sing a different tune on some occasions. We are considering the desirability of a White Paper, which was recommended by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and the Scrutiny Committee. We shall consider their recommendations carefully, but we have made it clear on a number of occasions that we will most certainly oppose some areas–certainly in advance of any White Paper saying so–in the negotiations that are to take place next year. They include an extension of qualified majority voting, massive new powers for the European Parliament and signing the social chapter. Whatever decision is reached about a White Paper, those policies are firm and will not change.

     

    Q8. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December.

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

    Mr. Skinner: When will the Government stop closing hospitals and wards, which affects the million-long waiting list and creates misery for all the people who want to get into hospital? Is the Prime Minister aware that it is creating another problem? Does he know that people are roaming the streets at night looking for hospitals to visit, but cannot find them? It is giving a whole new meaning to the term “roving ambassador”.

    The Prime Minister: On the subject of provision of resources in the health service, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the increased provision–an extra £1.3 billion again this year, which is 70 per cent. above inflation during the year. There was a time when there was a significant cut in the health service, but that was when the hon. Gentleman supported a Labour Government.