The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Bosnia

  • PMQT – 11 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Heppell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Heppell : Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the impartiality of Independent Television News is threatened by the appointment as its next chairman of Mr. Michael Green, a known Conservative supporter and Conservative donor? Or does the Prime Minister share the views of his predecessor and ask himself, as she did, “Is he one of us?”

    The Prime Minister : No, I do not think that the impartiality of ITN is at all threatened by the appointment of Mr. Green, any more than I would question the impartiality of many programmes whose presenters may have one or other political opinion.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Pawsey : Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the actions of one single militant teacher trade union which proposes to ballot its membership to boycott all tests [Interruption.] –Yes, all tests associated with the national curriculum? Will he also join me in saying just how damaging that would be to the education of the nation’s children?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend about that point, and I thoroughly condemn the union concerned. I believe that it will be seen by parents as a concerted attack on the rights of pupils and their parents to know what progress the pupils are making in their education at their individual schools. I very much hope that the teachers of that union will reject the proposition put before them.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it not a deplorable indictment of Conservative government that during the Conservative years crime has more than doubled? What action does the Prime Minister propose to take to protect our citizens from the crime wave that is sweeping the nation?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to want to put the blame for everything on the shoulders of the Government– quite apart from the view expressed by his shadow home affairs spokesman this morning. Let me illustrate for the right hon. and learned Gentleman some of the things that we have done. There has been the passage of the Public Order Act, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, both Criminal Justice Acts, the Prison Security Act and the Act to ban joy riding, every one of which was opposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party.

    Mr. Smith : Has the Prime Minister noticed that, whatever he claims to do or to have done, the crime rate rises consistently year after year? Does he think it remotely tolerable that, according to the Government’s crime survey, there are about 25,000 break-ins in this country every week? When will he do something about protecting our citizens from that?

    The Prime Minister : I note that there was no pledge from the right hon. and learned Gentleman to support legislation that we brought forward in previous years or to support us in the future in dealing with crime. Crime has increased ever since the second world war, under all Governments. Our record in combating crime is comparable with that of other countries in western Europe. This trend has been seen year after year, but it is not a matter which can be dealt with just by legislation. I doubt whether any other Government would have provided for the police the resources that the present Government have provided. Certainly, no other Government would have sided with the victim against the villain in the way that the present Government have.

    Mr. Marland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that last night Gloucestershire county council set a budget £10 million over its standard spending assessment? Does he know that Gloucestershire county council has debts of £25 million but has no plans substantially to reduce that figure? Does my right hon. Friend agree that plans should be made immediately to see that Gloucestershire county council seeks to reduce its debts so that money can be spent on education rather than on debt servicing?

    The Prime Minister : I think that it is regrettable that any authority should set an excessive budget. We have made it clear that we shall not hesitate in any way to cap such budgets. It is open to local authorities to set new, lower budgets, and I very much hope that Gloucestershire county council will do so.

     

    Q3. Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Barnes : I was interested in the Prime Minister’s initial reply about his engagements for today, but what about his engagements for tomorrow? My Representation of the People (Amendment ) Bill seeks to put the missing millions back on the electoral register and to secure access to polling stations for disabled people. Will the Prime Minister be around tomorrow to vote in support of that measure, and will he bring his friends with him? I know that he needs all the friends that he can get nowadays?

    The Prime Minister : I shall, in fact, be in my constituency meeting those friends.

    Mr. Elletson : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the conviction of the IRA terrorist Jimmy Canning represents a real success for the security services? Will he join me in congratulating those services in putting that murderous thug behind bars?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that that will be the wish of the overwhelming majority of people in this country. I am happy to congratulate both the Crown prosecution service and the Metropolitan police.

    Mr. Ashdown : While the Vance-Owen plan extracts the very best out of the terrible opportunities left open to us in Bosnia, does the Prime Minister realise that this is not a peace of which either he or other western leaders can be proud? It is their failure which has resulted in a price being paid in the dismemberment of the Muslim community, the disintegration of a state which was recognised by the United Nations, and reward for the aggressors. Does the Prime Minister understand that while we must all hope for peace in Bosnia, our hopes for peace in Europe will depend on our learning the lessons of this miserable affair?

    The Prime Minister : I regret that the right hon. Gentleman continues to take a wholly negative view of the enormous amount that has been done to seek a satisfactory peace in Yugoslavia. What is significant is the remarkable co-operation between the United States, the European Community and the United Nations in seeking to bring that conflict to an end. The best way forward, and the only credible way forward that has yet been found, is the Vance-Owen plan, which we strongly support. I very much welcome the policy statement from the United States Government earlier this week.

    Mr. Moss : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the three councils in Cambridgeshire–East Cambridgeshire, South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire–which recently announced a zero component for the district council portion of the new council tax? How is it that some councils can deliver a highly effective service to their taxpayers while others, such as Harlow, are gross overspenders? Could it be because the Cambridgeshire councils are not controlled by Labour?

    The Prime Minister : I think that there are two answers. First, the councils are efficient ; secondly, they are not run by the Socialist party.

     

    Q4. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Illsley : Does the Prime Minister not think it scandalous that at a time when the Health Department budget has been put into the public sector spending review and when prescription charges are about to be increased by 10 per cent., the West Midlands and Wessex health authorities have been allowed to squander £67 million on renting luxury homes in London, on air travel, on entertainment and on corrupt computer deals involving former Cabinet Ministers?

    The Prime Minister : I have no intention of commenting on the detailed points made by the hon. Gentleman. There are adequate ways of making sure that they are examined. As to the health budget and all other budgets, one reason for undertaking a fundamental review is to make sure that taxpayers’ money is well spent and that it is spent first on those areas that most require the expenditure.

    Mr. Allason : When my right hon. Friend undertakes his review of European regulations that are handicapping British industry, will he turn his attention to the tourist industry and consult the Torbay environmental health officer who requires every hotelier in Torbay to check, monitor and register the temperature of every deep freeze in every premises three times a day on penalty of prosecution? Is that not exactly the kind of daft regulation that we should get rid of?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that regulation to my attention. I will ensure that it is examined. There are many regulations that we could usefully manage without. The intention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is to identify them so that we can remove them.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hutton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Hutton : Is the Prime Minister aware that many health authorities and national health service trusts are currently being forced to cancel operations and close wards because of the inadequacies, and in some cases the mismanagement, of NHS resources? Is he aware, in particular, that in my constituency Roose hospital, which provides excellent geriatric care for elderly people, is being forced to close? Will he tell the House what measures will be taken to ensure that such hospitals stay open? How does he believe it helps health care for hospitals such as Roose to close?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the increased resources for health authorities–spending of £36 billion this year and planned spending of more than £37 billion next year ; an increase in national health service expenditure by up to 57 per cent. ; and an increase in the number of people treated. The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating the health authorities and the health service on that remarkable record.

     

    Q6. Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Robertson : Does my right hon. Friend agreed that it is the job of Government to attack cartels, cliques and vested interests–cartels in trade unions, cliques in Labour-controlled local authorities and vested interests that support the vast majority of Labour Members?

    The Prime Minister : I strongly suspect that my hon. Friend has struck a sore spot. Every member of the shadow Cabinet is sponsored by a trade union, two thirds of the votes at the Labour conference are still wielded by trade unions; they will not support our tests in the schools because that is what the National Union of Teachers wants, they oppose our reforms on health because that is what the Council of Health Services Employees wants, and they fight competitive tendering because that is what the National Union of Public Employees wants. There is no doubt whose pockets they are in.

    Mr. Faulds : Has no one– [Interruption.] Cheeky little pup.

    Madam Speaker : Order. I recollect that “Erskine May” does not allow that sort of language.

    Mr. Faulds : “Cheeky little pup” is a term of endearment, Madam Speaker. Has no one in government the simple intelligence to understand that the Cyprus– [Interruption.] –rather, the Vance-Owen plan– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down.

    Mr. Faulds : Bosnia is not a laughing matter– [Interruption.] Those idiots on the Government Benches. Has no one in government the simple intelligence to understand that the Vance-Owen plan as now drawn up is unacceptable because it rewards Serbian ethnic cleansing and is in danger of creating a Palestinian-type situation within a quarter of a century? Will the Prime Minister for once listen to reasonable advice from America, and will he understand that that plan can become acceptable only if the Serbian aggression is held, if the danger to the Bosnian Muslims and their territory is removed, and if war criminals in Yugoslavia are brought to proper trial?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has set out many of the matters which have been our policy for some time and were reiterated earlier this week by the American Administration–in particular, the point about war crimes. We have also supported–and others are now joining us in doing so–increased and hardened sanctions, particularly along the Danube, to put further pressure on the Serbs. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the map is not yet a settled matter. Nevertheless, there have been very dramatic improvements towards peace as a result of the Owen-Vance proposals. We need to continue to pursue those, and to continue to put pressure on each of the combatants until they reach a conclusion which will be satisfactory, which can be policed properly and which can bring the dreadful conflict to an end.

  • PMQT – 9 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Amess : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on launching a fundamental review of all Government spending, just as Conservative-controlled Basildon is currently doing? Does he agree that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure the best possible value for every pound of taxpayers’ money that is spent?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend so often reminds the House, where Basildon leads others tend to follow.

    I welcome yesterday’s statement by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Government spend over £250 billion a year of taxpayers’ money. I believe that it is necessary to look very closely at the way in which that money is spent and at where it is spent and to ensure that we obtain the best possible value for every pound that is spent. It is for that reason that we are conducting the review.

    Mrs. Beckett : Does the Prime Minister recall the promise that he made during the election campaign only 10 months ago? He said that the Government had no plans and no need to extend the scope of value added tax. Does he stand by those words?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady knows that we are near to the Budget. She must wait.

    Mrs. Beckett : The Prime Minister made just that promise to the British people when he needed their votes. Why will not he make it now?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady knows that we are close to the Budget. She must wait.

    Mrs. Beckett : At the time of the election, the Prime Minister and all his colleagues promised no change in VAT, no other new taxes or charges and no cuts in the public spending plans that they had put before the British people. Is not it clear from the Prime Minister’s refusal to answer a simple question that all his promises had a sell-by date of 9 April?

    The Prime Minister : It is not remotely clear from that. What is clear is that we are close to the Budget and the hon. Lady will have to wait for the Budget to find out what it contains.

    Mr. William Powell : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the article by Robert Fisk in yesterday’s edition of The Independent which describes systematic rape in Bosnia? Has not the time come for the establishment of a war crimes tribunal, so that those responsible for the perpetration of such foul crimes can be brought to justice? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that, under the authority of the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, such a tribunal is established as quickly as possible?

    The Prime Minister : I have not seen the article to which my hon. Friend refers, but, as he will know, we have been considering that matter in concert with the United Nations for some time.

     

    Q2. Mr. Heppell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Heppell : Is the Prime Minister aware that unemployment in my constituency, in the once-prosperous city of Nottingham, is now higher than in any Scottish or Welsh constituency, having risen by 44 per cent. between 1990 and 1992? With three out of 10 males now unemployed, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect unemployment to start to fall?

    The Prime Minister : I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s concern about unemployment, but I would respect it more if he did not support policies that would deliberately put people out of work– [Interruption.] –rather than back into work. He and his party have consistently argued for a national minimum wage and even the Fabian Society has recognised that

    “an inescapable part of a”

    national minimum wage

    “policy is increased unemployment.”

    Perhaps that is another policy which the Labour Front Bench could ditch.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Arnold : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Government support the Owen-Vance peace plan and that they will continue to keep up their pressure on the warring parties to comply with that plan? In the meantime, will he confirm British support for the humanitarian aid now going to Bosnia?

    The Prime Minister : Yes. I confirm both points. The Government’s policy is fully to support the Owen-Vance peace plan, which was developed out of the conference that I chaired in London last August. We also wish to maintain the conditions in which our forces can support the United Nations humanitarian effort, without which many thousands of people alive today would otherwise have been dead. But we believe it to be necessary to increase the pressure on the parties to help seek a solution. The United Kingdom has put forward proposals for tightening the operation of sanctions across the Danube and for increasing the isolation of Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs if their aggression persists. I hope that that policy will be supported throughout the European Community and the United Nations.

     

    Q4. Mr. Austin-Walker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Austin-Walker : Will the Prime Minister find time today to examine the effects of land contamination on job creation? In particular, will he examine the position of the Woolwich Arsenal site, which once employed 80,000 people in a single factory, but which now lies derelict in an area where male unemployment tops 62 per cent? Will he give a categorical assurance that, as the contamination was caused by the Ministry of Defence, the Government will meet the full cost of decontamination on that site and the neighbouring Thamesmead area?

    The Prime Minister : The Secretary of State for Defence will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, will examine the matter and will respond to him.

     

    Q5. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the great teaching profession clearly welcomes higher standards through the national curriculum, but appears to be flinching from achieving them through standard assessment tests? Does he further agree that it is vital, above all in the interests of our nation and our children, that the tests go ahead without delay?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that we need national tests to raise standards and it is our intention that they shall go ahead. They are and remain a vital part of the national curriculum. Children need them, parents want them and I expect teachers to supervise them.

    Mr. Llwyd : Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will meet the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shortly to discuss his disgraceful betrayal of British farmers with the proposed cuts in hill livestock compensatory allowances–despite the promise, fewer than 18 months ago, that they were safe in his hands?

    The Prime Minister : I meet my right hon. Friend many times a week, but, regardless of the cut in HLCAs to which the hon. Gentleman refers, hill farmers’ incomes will be between £60 million and £70 million higher as a result of increased sheep premiums, the green pound devaluation and other market factors.

     

    Q6. Mr. Nicholls : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Nicholls : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while any convert to conservatism is always welcome, if that conversion is coupled with a continuing opposition to British Rail privatisation, grant- maintained schools, GP fund-holding practices and compulsory competitive tendering, it shows that the conversion is insubstantial and entirely unreal? Is not that now the position of the Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I welcome all conversions to conservatism, especially death-bed conversions–but they must be genuine conversions, not conversions that use the language of conservatism but remain wedded to the instincts and policies of socialism. Until the right hon. and learned Gentleman formally drops his commitment to clause 4, his opposition to privatisation and his idiotic proposal for a windfall tax, no one will take his conversion seriously.

    Mr. Terry Davis : Will the Prime Minister find time today to tell the President of the Board of Trade to get round the table with the Leyland DAF receiver, the management and the unions, in an attempt to save the van factory in Birmingham, which has a highly skilled and motivated work force of 2,000 people?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the receivers. Several Hon. Members rose —

    Madam Speaker : Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats.

    Mr. Forman : When my right hon. Friend is considering new measures to help the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed, will he give careful consideration to the idea of relaxing the social security rules that affect availability for work, so that it is possible for people to do more than 24 hours a week of voluntary work and more than 21 hours a week of educational study–to their benefit and that of the country?

    The Prime Minister : We have looked and are looking at a range of measures that might encourage people back into work. I cannot give my hon. Friend a particular undertaking on the point that he makes, but we are looking at a range of ways to assist.

     

    Q7. Mr. Turner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 February.

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

    Mr. Turner : The Prime Minister’s record is not a good one. Since he came to office in 1990, more than 1 million people have joined the unemployed queues and more than 100,000 training places have been lost. Is this the vision of Opportunity Britain, or is it a sign of the growing army of jobless whose lives have been wasted by the Government?

    The Prime Minister : What we have sought to do and are doing is to put in place the economic circumstances that will create genuine and lasting jobs. That is why we have cut inflation to its lowest level for six years, brought interest rates down to their lowest for 15 years and put in place the most comprehensive training programme ever seen in this country. That is the only way to secure long-term, permanent jobs–not the quick fixes so beloved of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

     

    Cleethorpes

    Q8. Mr. Michael Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Cleethorpes by train.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include my hon. Friend’s constituency among them.

    Mr. Brown : I am delighted to hear that reply. Does my right hon. Friend recall the days when he and I used to travel on the train to Cleethorpes, which used to stop at Huntingdon? Is he aware that if he makes his official visit to Cleethorpes by train, after May this year he will have to change at Newark and hang around on the platform catching flu for hours on end because British Rail is taking away the direct train service to Cleethorpes? Does he agree that it is vital that British Rail should continue that service at least until the Railways Bill is on the statute book, when we can take advantage of the franchising opportunities of privatisation?

    The Prime Minister : I recall those journeys with my hon. Friend with great pleasure, but British Rail’s monopoly service means that it decides what services to run in the light of its view of passenger demand. I stress to my hon. Friend that British Rail’s reluctance to change its service now is no bar to subsequent changes. The privatisation proposals will break British Rail’s monopoly and will bring in private sector operators and I believe that part of those franchises will provide a better, cheaper and more effective service for the commuter.

  • PMQT – 14 January 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Wareing : Does the Prime Minister agree that although the action against Saddam Hussein was thoroughly justified, similar military action in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina could not be so justified? Will he give a categorical assurance that no British service man’s life will be put at risk by fighting on one side or the other of that conflict, because such a conflict would lead to a general conflagration in the area? Should not the message from the House now be : remember Sarajevo, 1914?

    The Prime Minister : The situation in Bosnia presents special difficulties and is quite different, as the hon. Gentleman said. He will know the action that we have taken : we have imposed an arms embargo, sanctions and a no-fly zone which has been made effective. Progress has been made in the peace talks in Geneva–not enough, but progress has been made–and we will take further measures if we have to. As the hon. Gentleman may know, European Community Foreign Ministers agreed yesterday to work on measures leading to Serbia’s total diplomatic isolation. The European Community also agreed on the need for an international criminal court and will support that at the United Nations.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pickles : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Pickles : In his busy schedule today, does my right hon. Friend have any plans to commemorate the centenary of the foundation of the Independent Labour party? If so, what advice does he offer as the most appropriate way to mark this event?

    The Prime Minister : I did not have it in mind to do so, but perhaps we might hold a wake.

    Mr. John Smith : To return to the Prime Minister’s actual responsibilities, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is right that taxpayers’ money should be used to pay the legal fees incurred by a Minister in connection with his own private affairs?

    The Prime Minister : It is uncharacteristic of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deal in innuendo. The matter to which he refers has been dealt with by Sir John Bourn, an independent report has been commissioned and the answer is quite clear : no impropriety occurred.

    Mr. Smith : Does not the Prime Minister even understand the distinction between a public duty and a private concern? In this case, is not it clear that the Chancellor instructed solicitors because of his decision to rent his own property to a tenant for his own profit? Is not it clear from the report to which the Prime Minister refers that the Chancellor instructed solicitors without referring the matter to a Government legal adviser? If property was involved, should not the Chancellor be asked to repay the money now?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman may wish to reflect on and withdraw those remarks. It is uncharacteristically cheap of him to have raised the matter in this fashion. The report fully exonerates the Treasury on the central questions : was it right to make the payment and were any rules breached? Sir John Bourn, who carried out the inquiry, has no criticism on either point. He also confirms that the Chancellor did not ask for assistance and makes no criticism of my right hon. Friend’s actions.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister understand that it is a matter not of innuendo but of public policy on whether taxpayers’ money should be used to finance the private legal affairs of a Minister? If the Prime Minister is resting on the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which has not yet been considered by the Public Accounts Committee, will he explain why, as is clear from the report, the whole matter was concealed under a heading called

    “Expenditure on economic, financial and related administration”, which included the expenses of pay review bodies and the cost of the BCCI inquiry? Was not there an attempt to hide this matter from the public and from scrutiny here?

    The Prime Minister rose —

    Hon. Members : Answer!

    Madam Speaker : Order. It is pointless the House shouting “answer” ; the Prime Minister is at the Dispatch Box doing just that.

    The Prime Minister : It says a great deal about the Leader of the Opposition that, the day after our service men have been in action in Iraq and when we have troops in Bosnia, he has raised this matter in the House. I repeat, as he sits smiling smugly, that the Chancellor did not receive assistance. The Treasury broke no accounting rules and in the absence of the rules it was appropriate that judgment should be exercised by two accounting officers. That has been independently examined. There is no criticism of that judgment and if he had a shred of self-respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw those remarks.

    Mr. Butterfill : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Aim Aviation of Bournemouth, which has been so successful in winning export orders in the United States, the far east and Europe that it has had to acquire a new factory at Wallisdown in my constituency? Will he join me in wishing it every success in seeking new orders, which it undoubtedly will be able to do under the policies of the Government?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to do that and I am delighted to hear of this export success. There is no doubt that our exports have been on a rising trend. Equally, there is no doubt that we have the right economic fundamentals to encourage exporting in the future.

    Mr. Boyce : What a load of nonsense.

    The Prime Minister : It is vital that we do so for our jobs and prosperity. We understand that, even if the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce) understands nothing.

     

    Q3. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Livingstone : Does the Prime Minister accept that the vigour with which the Government have ensured that Iraq complies with the United Nations resolutions is not repeated when ensuring that other nations such as India comply with United Nations resolutions on Kashmir or China with United Nations resolutions on Tibet? Is he aware that, to many people in the world, it seems that we pursue United Nations resolutions with vigour only when they refer to endangered western oil interests?

    The Prime Minister : I think the hon. Gentleman knows better than that. This country has a better record of supporting United Nations resolutions than almost any country that he can name.

    In the case of the difficulties with Iraq, there was a clear violation and invasion of a neighbouring country and an attempt to capture both that neighbouring country and probably to move on further down the Gulf. Recently there have been deliberate attempts of genocide both in the north and south of Iraq. The whole of the hon. Gentleman’s background suggests that he should be supporting the Government in preventing that genocide.

    Mr. Bill Walker : My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Cabinet will shortly be looking at proposals for the future of the naval dockyards. He will be aware of the political sensitivity that applies to both naval dockyards. Will he assure me and the House that the decision, when made, will be based upon equal opportunities for both dockyards and that we will be comparing apples with apples so that there is no question of saying afterwards that the decision was arrived at other than properly and honourably?

    The Prime Minister : I can assure my hon. Friend that every relevant factor will be taken into account.

     

    Q4. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will the Prime Minister find time today to pass on the condolences of everyone in the House to the family and friends of my constituent, Lance Corporal Edwards, who was killed yesterday bravely delivering aid to Bosnia? Will the Prime Minister tell the House what measures he will be taking to ensure that the troops performing this dangerous role have the firepower and intelligence back-up to prevent further casualties?

    The Prime Minister : The whole House will agree with what the hon. Gentleman had to say about his constituent. He was a very brave man and there is no doubt that he gave his life to save the lives of many other people who would have died, but for actions of Lance Corporal Edwards and those of his colleagues.

    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be making a statement after questions which will be directly germane to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

     

    Q5. Mr. David Martin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Martin : Is my right hon. Friend aware that since he visited St. Mary’s hospital in Portsmouth, it, with Queen Alexandra’s, has been approved for trust status? Remembering all the virulent criticisms levelled at trust hospitals by the Opposition parties, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has seen the reports in today’s papers that even the official Front-Bench spokesman of the Labour party now sees the sense in our reforms? Is there joy in Downing street over one sinner that repenteth?

    The Prime Minister : There is hardly likely to be joy over that particular sinner. But I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that I have seen the report. The fact is that the Labour party has no agenda of its own. Conservatism has won the arguments on health and will continue to win them. I well remember what the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said :

    “I give this historic pledge that the hospital that serves my constituents will opt out over my dead body.”

    I hope that the hon. Member does not live to regret that pledge. No doubt if he is ill his local trust hospital will treat him.

    Mr. Wigley : Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the representations that have been made over a number of months by disablement organisations about the need for anti-discrimination legislation? As he once had ministerial responsibility for disabled people and bearing in mind the fact that a Bill has passed through the House of Lords, will the Prime Minister find time for such legislation to go on the statute book in this parliamentary year?

    The Prime Minister : This is a technical and difficult matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House, but I will look at the points he raised and discuss them with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

     

    Worcester

    Q6. Mr. Luff : To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to pay an official visit to Worcester.

    The Prime Minister : I am at present making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and I hope to include Worcester among them.

    Mr. Luff : Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he were to visit Worcester, he would encounter very great admiration for the skills and bravery of our armed forces, both in Bosnia and the Gulf? Is he also aware that he would encounter great local anger at the inability of the Labour- controlled local council to live within its means and at its failed gamble that it would be bailed out by an incoming Labour Government, as a result of which it is resorting to desperate measures to balance the books, including the sale of much-loved public open spaces?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that a number of people may well have gambled on a Labour victory at the last election. I am bound to say that it was always likely to be a poor bet. I quite understand the way my hon. Friend feels about the Labour council in Worcester–many people around the country feel the same about other Labour councils. It is the charge payers of Worcester who will have to pick up the bill for the Labour council’s actions and I hope that they will remember that when the local council elections come along.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Vaz : The Prime Minister may recall that on 14 March 1991 I met him to discuss the case of my constituent, John Hall, who was dying of leukaemia, an illness which he contracted while serving on Christmas island. He also knows that John Hall subsequently died on 3 June last year in the royal infirmary in Leicester. The House rightly honours those who serve this country. Will the Prime Minister join me and others in honouring the memory and selfless devotion of the British nuclear test veterans and pay them and their families the compensation which they so richly deserve?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in honouring all our veterans, whether those veterans or others. He will know that the question of compensation and whether it is due for the reasons he set out is being examined at this moment.

  • Mr Major’s Statement at Redoubt – 22 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement at Redoubt on Tuesday 22nd December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Can we have your first impressions, Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the first impression is the impression you get as you drive up from Split, what used to be a tiny mud road is now becoming a perfectly usable road to deliver humanitarian supplies, that has happened because of our engineers and I think we can be very proud of them.

    QUESTION:

    How concerned are you about the risks as your troops do more and more to try and stop this war?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am concerned and that is one of the reasons I am here, I wanted to be here to assess the risk for myself, talk to the Commanders in the field, examine what is happening, see the terrain so that I am in a far better position to make judgments than before. So yes of course I am concerned about the risk but the prime concern that I must have is to ensure the safety and security of our troops here.

    QUESTION:

    Are those risks increased by the enforcement of a No Fly Zone?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will have to make sure when the No Fly Zone is enforced, I think there is going to be a No Fly Zone resolution, the nature of it is clearly important, that is still under discussion, and as that happens we will need to ensure the security of our troops here, that is paramount.

    QUESTION:

    Do you feel that the imposition of that No Fly Zone will make us combatants rather than be able to continue the humanitarian work here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we are here to help with the humanitarian work, I think there are wider reasons for the No Fly Zone that we have discussed before and will discuss again. I think increasingly it is becoming evident that it is necessary. What is happening across Bosnia is not acceptable, we have seen it, you see it day to day on television, you read about it, we all know of the atrocities that are being committed and I think it has to be made clear that those are not acceptable. There is a Security Council resolution applying a No Fly Zone. I do not think we can allow that to be flouted hence there is a need to enforce it, but there is more than one way of enforcing it and these are the matters under discussion.

    QUESTION:

    You have talked about reinforcing them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to discuss matters like that, I wanted to see what was happening on the ground itself.

    QUESTION:

    But it is an option?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course it is an option, all things are an option, I am determined to look at the security of our troops, that is the paramount concern.

    QUESTION:

    The paramount concern is surely to save lives here is it not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are saving lives with the humanitarian delivery, that of course is what our troops are here for, but we must also make absolutely sure that our troops carrying that out are firstly properly protected and secondly not put in unnecessary danger, they are doing a vitally important job and we must make sure that they are able to do it securely.

    QUESTION:

    But is there not a lack of clarity over whether we are here primarily to save lives?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, there is no lack of clarity about that, the mandate for the British troops here is a humanitarian mandate, that is what they are here for, they are to help assist in the delivery of humanitarian aid into a number of pockets where it is badly needed, that is their job here at the moment.

  • Mr Major’s Address to Troops at Redoubt – 22 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s address to the troops at Redoubt on Tuesday 22nd December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am afraid in the next few months it is going to get less easy, the weather so far has been better than it might have been, it will get worse, no doubt there will be other difficulties, I think we need to be prepared for that, you have been here for some time getting ready so that you are prepared for that.

    But I think we need to bear in mind a couple of things. Let me tell you, over the weekend I spent the weekend in the United States talking to President Bush and others, he particularly asked me to say to you how much admiration there is in the United States and elsewhere for the work that the British troops are doing here, I think people know that you are the backbone, ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid.

    I can only say to you, you may think out here pretty much that you are on your own when you are widening the road or when the Cheshires are operating up the road a little, but day after day people at home are seeing what you are doing, they are hearing about what you are doing, they are concerned about what you are doing and there are millions of people watching it with a very great degree of admiration. So if you do feel pretty cold, pretty chilly, pretty much on your own out there I would just like you to know there are a lot of people thinking of what you are doing.

    And the importance of what you are doing is very difficult to over-state. There would be an awful lot of people who would die this winter but for the work that you are able to do and will be doing through the winter, we would not have the roads widened, we would not have the humanitarian aid through, we would not have the medicines through without that, there are a lot of men, women and children who simply would not survive this winter and that is why you are here and I would just like to express my gratitude to you for that.

    It is Christmas, you are a long way from home, it is not a great time to be away from home but there will be a lot of other people who will see a few more Christmases because you have sacrificed this Christmas away from your families and out here and I would like to say Thank You to you for that.

    You probably know some of the diplomatic moves going on at the moment about the No Fly Zone. I suspect there is going to be a No Fly Zone resolution, we spent the weekend talking about the details of that in America, it will come I suspect before the United Nations in a few days time. Final details of that are still to be determined but I just want to say this to you, when we have that No Fly Zone be absolutely certain that the matter foremost in the minds of the government and others will be to ensure your security out here, that is not for one second going to be overlooked as we make further diplomatic moves. I would like you to know that and I would like your families back home in Germany, where many of them will be, or in the United Kingdom, to know that as well.

    So I think that is really all I have got to say, thanks for what you are doing, keep safe, have as good a Christmas as you can and I hope we can get you home as soon as we may. Thank you all very much indeed.

  • Mr Major’s Pool Interview en route to Bosnia – 22 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s pool interview given to journalists en route to Bosnia on Tuesday 22nd December 1992.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Prime Minister, why are you making this trip?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have British troops deployed out there, quite large numbers of them, and deployed out there in very difficult circumstances. I want to go and see the circumstances in which they are working and thank them for the work they are doing.

    INTERVIEWER:

    How important is that work because there were questions raised at the outset of whether this was a major contribution, a lot of troops but was this vital work that they were doing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Oh it is vital, I do not think there is any doubt at all. The view of the United Nations and of everyone else is that the British troops there are now the absolute backbone of the humanitarian effort, they are doing a superb job in the most difficult circumstances and in the most difficult terrain, I think you will see that for yourself later today.

    INTERVIEWER:

    And will you be able to convince them that they are not at any greater risk as a result of plans to enforce a No Fly Zone over Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Their safety and their security is my first concern, I want to see that for myself today, if it is necessary to make any changes in policy then we will make changes in policy. The security of our troops is paramount, absolutely no doubt whatsoever about that. And I want to go there, I want to thank them for what they have been doing and I want to tell them what is happening diplomatically and what that may mean for them, they are our troops, they have a right to know it and I am looking forward to telling them face to face.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Bosnia – 21 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Bosnia, made in an interview on Monday 21st December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had been pushed into a policy on Bosnia against his will].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe remotely that is the case. We have reacted very cautiously on Bosnia but I think we also have to realise what is happening there. Many of the actions we have seen in Bosnia are quite unspeakable, quite intolerable, and I think we have to reflect that in our policy but I say there is caution and I say that for good reason. Although I think policy is now moving forward, people have to realise the wider issues that are actually at stake in Bosnia. Bosnia itself is very important, so of course is the danger of conflagration spreading either to Macedonia or Kosovo. Were either of those two events to happen, one might have a much wider Balkans war. That is something we need to bear in mind as we develop our policy as we have been doing.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had support from the US if British troops or aid workers were attacked].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am very happy with the discussions I had with President Bush over the weekend. There is still some more work to be done on the nature of the no-fly zone Resolution. I am confident now that there will be and that we will be able to take policy forward. I think for a raft of reasons it is desirable that we should have this particular Resolution and we have been looking at how it will be enforced, the nature of enforcement, the time-scale and those were all matters which we discussed over the weekend.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there would be a 15 day warning period to the Serbs].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is certainly our wish that there should be a pause between the passage of the Resolution and its commencement for a whole series of practical reasons to do with the security of the UN humanitarian forces and also the British forces – that is certainly true.

    There is no agreement on the period. The 15 days has entered into parlance because that of course was the period that applied in Kuwait, but there are different circumstances in Bosnia and no time-scale has yet been agreed.

  • Text of the NATO Statement on Former Yugoslavia – 17 December 1992

    Below is the text of the NATO Statement on Former Yugoslavia, issued on 17th December 1992.

    STATEMENT ON FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

    1 – We are profoundly disturbed by the deteriorating situation in the former Yugoslavia, which constitutes a serious threat to international peace, security, and stability. Recent meetings in Edinburgh, Stockholm and Geneva have made clear the international community’s impatience with the situation, its determination that the carnage and lawlessness in former Yugoslavia be brought to a halt, and its commitment to a negotiated, peaceful and lasting settlement. We are contributing individually and as an Alliance to the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions, and we are prepared to respond to further requests for such contributions.

    2 – Primary responsibility for the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina lies with the present leadership of Serbia and of the Bosnian Serbs. They have sought territorial gains by force and engaged in systematic gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, including the barbarous practice of “ethnic cleansing”. There is the systematic detention and rape of Muslim women and girls. Relief convoys are being harassed and delayed. All such acts must cease. Those individuals responsible for atrocities, whatever party they belong to, are accountable for their actions and liable to be judged accordingly. To this end, we welcome consideration of the creation of an ad hoc tribunal.

    3 – We reject any unilateral changes in borders, territory, or populations. The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina must be restored. We call upon all parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina to accept the Geneva Conference draft outline constitution as a basis for negotiations. We strongly support the continuing efforts of the UN and EC Co-Chairmen of the International Conference on Former Yugoslavia (ICFY).

    4 – We are deeply concerned about possible spillover of the conflict, and about the situation in Kosovo. We call urgently on all parties to act with restraint and moderation. Serious negotiations on the restoration of autonomy to Kosovo within Serbia and the guarantee of full human rights should begin immediately under the ICFY. We are in favour of a UN preventive presence in Kosovo. An explosion of violence in Kosovo could, by spreading the conflict, constitute a serious threat to international peace and security and would require an appropriate response by the international community.

    5 – We support CSCE efforts and a substantial increase in international conflict prevention measures, such as monitoring missions, and expect cooperation from all parties. We urge further speedy preventive steps by the UN or the CSCE to help defuse existing tensions. In that context, we welcome the decision of the United Nations Security Council to place peacekeeping forces on the borders of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia with Albania and Serbia and Montenegro.

    6 – Strict enforcement of UN embargoes is essential. We urge nations to continue efforts to tighten their enforcement.

    7 – The Alliance has contributed personnel and equipment to the UNPROFOR II Headquarters in Bosnia-Herzegovina, is helping to enforce UN embargoes in the Adriatic, and is providing to the UN data obtained from NATO Airborne Early-Warning (AWACS) aircraft to help monitor the Bosnia- Herzegovina no-fly zone. Members of the Alliance are prepared to take further steps to assist the UN in implementing its decisions to maintain international peace and security.

    8 – The Security Council will shortly consider adopting a resolution on enforcement of the No-Fly Zone, bearing in mind the need to continue the current humanitarian effort in Bosnia. Should such a resolution be adopted, and should violations continue thereafter, we would be prepared to support the UN in enforcing that resolution.

    9 – In view of the continuing attacks on Sarajevo, we urge the Security Council to consider further measures as soon as possible, as set out in the 9th December Statement of the UN Security Council President.

    10 – All parties, but in particular the Serbian authorities, in and outside Bosnia-Herzegovina must cooperate fully with UNHCR and UNPROFOR. We recall that UNSCR 770 authorizes all measures necessary to ensure relief deliveries to Bosnia, and that interference in relief activities is an international crime. All must refrain from any action which might jeopardize the safety of UNPROFOR and other UN personnel. If requested by the UN, the Alliance would be prepared to take appropriate measures if any of these personnel are threatened or harmed.

  • Mr Major’s Arrival Doorstep Interview in Montreal – 17 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s arrival doorstep interview in Montreal on Thursday 17th December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can you confirm that Britain would not use a veto in the Security Council against any No Fly Zone enforcement moves that were taken up?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will have the opportunity of discussing this over the next two days but I certainly do not expect that there would be a resolution that we would need to veto, I think that that is most unlikely.

    QUESTION:

    What form would the resolution take, do you think?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is still to be discussed and I hope to have the opportunity of discussing that over the weekend with President Bush.

    QUESTION:

    Are you certain yet how far you are prepared to go in committing any more military effort from Britain, whether it was to enforce the No Fly Zone or anything else?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Those are matters that we will discuss over the weekend, there are a number of complex matters that need to be brought together, I will discuss them over the weekend, I may have more to say by the end of the weekend.

    QUESTION:

    Do you accept what Mrs Thatcher is saying today that the West should accept some blame for what has happened in Yugoslavia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen what Lady Thatcher has said about that and I have no comment to make about it until I have seen the text.

    QUESTION:

    Do you regard the Bosnian question as top of the agenda with President Bush?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it must be top of many people’s agenda, there are other matters to discuss with President Bush, of course, the GATT Round is still very important and we have other matters to discuss as well. But I do not think anyone can have any doubt about the importance of what has been happening in Bosnia, many of the actions there are appalling, there is no doubt about that, but we need to look and see what can be done to bring a settlement but we need to do that in the context of maintaining the humanitarian relief that is now going through, were that to be broken there would be very serious consequences this winter.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think some of the voices on the American side are too gung-ho and do you think the British and American positions can be reconciled?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I would not describe them in that fashion and I have no doubt that we will reach an accommodation before the Security Council resolution comes round, I have no doubt at all about that, I think there is a common acknowledgement of the problem and a common will to deal with it.

    QUESTION:

    To those who say something must be done, what do you say at this stage?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We all want to do something and we are doing something and the question is what we can do that is most effective. We have to bear in mind that there are many people in very great difficulty in central Bosnia who actually need those humanitarian lines to be kept open, we have to bear in mind what nature of conflict this is and consider what actions we can most take that are most successful. I am not interested in gestures, I am interested in actions that will be successful, those are the matters we have to discuss.

    QUESTION:

    Could action be taken before Mr Clinton takes over in the White House?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I cannot speculate upon that.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think you can make significant progress on GATT both in Ottawa later tonight and in Washington in unblocking the problems that are still facing the GATT negotiators?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are still some problems in Geneva and I think it is very important that we make progress, we will certainly discuss with the United States but of course we are now into multilateral negotiations in Geneva, it is not just a question of the Community and the United States, there are much wider interests as well.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Mr Brian Mulroney and M Jacques Delors – 17 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Mr Brian Mulroney and M Jacques Delors, held in Ottawa on Thursday 17th December 1992.

    MR MULRONEY:

    The Prime Minister and President Delors have been travelling and they were sidelined to Montreal and they had to drive up here so they are understandably pretty tired and they have got a full day tomorrow in Washington. So I thank them for coming and I will just say very briefly to offer both a welcome to them and our congratulations to the Prime Minister for the excellent success of Edinburgh and the great progress that was made, the Canadians thought very skilfully handled and so we are always very happy for progress that takes place in the European Community because of its importance for Canada and for the United States.

    We just had an opportunity for roughly an hour to review some trade matters and some political matters, especially the evolving situation in Bosnia, and we will have a chance to chat again over dinner and early tomorrow morning before the Prime Minister leaves. So in the interests of time, because we do have guests waiting and you have deadlines, there will not be any individual statements.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] and I would like to have the same comments from Mr Major, the decisions taken by NATO Foreign Ministers today in Brussels?

    MR MULRONEY:

    They are examining it, as we are causing it to be examined at the United Nations, and I had a call from Barbara McDougal a few hours ago and the steps taken today were prudent but our hope is that this matter will wind up with the Security Council of the United Nations and at that point in time there will be a decision I suppose that will be endorsed by the international community.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think there is a great deal to add to that, it was a prudent and a balanced decision that was taken today. I suspect the matter is heading back in one form or another to the Security Council and at the moment there is a great deal of bilateral discussion taking place to determine exactly what happens there.

    QUESTION:

    [In French and not interpreted].

    MR MULRONEY:

    [In French and not interpreted].

    QUESTION:

    Lady Thatcher today said that the West must bear its share of blame for not stopping Serbian aggression and she called for a military [indistinct] in Bosnia, what do you make of those proposals?

    MR MULRONEY:

    Well of course I was a partner with Mrs Thatcher when she was Prime Minister in respect of Kuwait and her view was, and that I certainly endorsed, that action of this nature should come about as a result of the Security Council of the United Nations speaking on behalf of the civilised world, and that is what we did. The United Kingdom and Canada and France and the United States and I think 26 or 27 others were partners in the initiative under the aegis of the Security Council that allowed us to take the action in the Gulf. Unilateral action in this circumstance would be dangerous and perhaps self-defeating, it requires absolutely the moral authority and the effectiveness of the resolution of the Security Council before industrialised countries and others can go beyond where we are at the moment. That is why Canada and I think the United Kingdom and others have been pressing for this matter to come forward at the Security Council at an early moment.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] whether they believe that given the danger of retaliation a No Fly Zone could be enforced in Bosnia without ground troops being available to finish the action?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    A key question, it is the question that may be unknowable until it is actually put to the test. The United Nations imposed the No Fly Zone and so far as one can tell it has been effective in that it has stopped combat aircraft flying, it has not been effective in that it has not stopped helicopters and other small aircraft flying. So there has clearly been no large-scale movement of troops, there may have been movement of commanders, there may have been movements of very small numbers of troops, that we do not know. The Security Council will clearly have to look at the question of enforcement and it will have to take into account the nature of enforcement, we need to be clear precisely what it means, whether it means that aircraft would be prevented from taking off, whether it means if they had taken off they were forced to land or whether in its most severe form it would mean shooting down aircraft that infringed it.

    These are matters that need discussing together with the impact of what that might mean for the humanitarian forces because there are two objectives and they run in parallel that the United Nations and its member states need to bear in mind. The first is the desirability, the necessity of seeking a political solution to stop the carnage in Bosnia and some of the unspeakable activities that have been going on there, that is the first objective. The second objective is one that we must live with day after day after day, and that is to sustain the humanitarian links that are actually taking food into literally hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise face starvation and have no medical care or medicines whatsoever. And we need to keep those two things running parallel, it is a very fine judgment, it is why there is so much bilateral discussion at the moment before those judgments are taken.

    But I repeat what I said a moment ago, I think this matter is going back to the Security Council, there is a mounting impatience in the West over the events in Bosnia and I do not see that rapidly being stilled.

    QUESTION:

    If the United Nations and the EC are unable to stop the killings, as they seem unable to, is a unilateral role by NATO right out of the question as far as you are concerned?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a matter for NATO, it is not a matter I can answer this afternoon. We have to bear in mind what nature of conflict this is. This is not the same conflict as Kuwait where you had one country forcibly invaded and raped by another country. Here you have what is in essence a civil war, beginning when people of one nationality locked together with others suddenly started to seek a greater share of the land, it grew up, it mushroomed from that beginning. It is a very messy and difficult problem, it is not one capable of easy solution. That does not mean we can stand by and take no action whatsoever, it does mean we need to be very measured and certain in the action we take before we commit ourselves to it and that is why it does need international decisions, it is right I think for it to go back to the United Nations and for NATO and other nations collectively to look at it there and I think that is the way it will be dealt with.

    QUESTION:

    Are there positions beyond which the UK is not prepared to go?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to anticipate what may happen in the future. We have made it clear at the moment that I do not think this is a matter that can be readily resolved with a few ground troops, we have got troops in Bosnia at the moment, the troops are there actually delivering humanitarian aid. We are seeking a political solution, we pursued that in the London Conference that we called during our European Community Presidency, Mr Vance and Lord Owen are still pursuing that settlement, there are a whole series of meetings that have been taking place just this very week. I am not going to anticipate beyond that, I do not think it would be wise from the point of view of the West and I do not think it would be wise in terms of indicating to others what might happen.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Mulroney are you worried about the threat to humanitarian forces and to troops already protecting them if there is military enforcement of a No Fly Zone?

    MR MULRONEY:

    Yes we are, we, like the British, have substantial numbers of people in former Yugoslavia and we are very concerned not only for their welfare but for the welfare of other NGOs and United Nations humanitarian personnel who are there because there have been indications strictly given by leaders of the Bosnian Serbs that any indications of action, multilateral or otherwise, would provoke retaliation against people on the ground and we have obviously a primary obligation to our people and the representatives of our allies who are on the ground now trying to deliver humanitarian services. And so that too, as Prime Minister Major has indicated, is one of the reasons why unilateral action, dramatically articulated, has a certain appeal, a certain cachet, but in point of fact the reality is that this matter can only be resolved multilaterally by the Security Council of the United Nations. That does not preclude under that umbrella action by NATO forces, we all happen to be allies together in the pursuit of this objective, but clearly the leadership must come from the Security Council of the United Nations and we are looking for that leadership because we are extremely dissatisfied with what is taking place, as you know, and as Prime Minister Major has just stated.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that whatever does come perhaps should not occur before the elections in Serbia, that in fact you might strengthen the hand of Milosevic by taking a tough line at this moment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Elections in Serbia are only a day or so away are they not?

    MR MULRONEY:

    I think the Prime Minister is right and then you are going to get this kind of unpersuasive response from Belgrade that they have got nothing to do with what is going on in Bosnia and so I hope no-one believes that. And so what is taking place there will be significant and hopefully the United Nations will deal with the situation both as it is in Bosnia and as the reality exists in Belgrade. The solution cannot come from one source alone, there is a bifurcation of responsibility here, it has to be brought together and dealt with strictly under the aegis of the Security Council of the United Nations but with both eyes on both of those areas and I think that to the extent that a solution might emerge it is in that regard.

    QUESTION:

    [In French and not interpreted].

    M. DELORS:

    [In French and not interpreted].

    MR MULRONEY:

    [In French and not interpreted].