The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Bosnia

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Women’s Conference – 1 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Women’s Conference, held in London on Friday 1st December 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’ve come to talk to you today about one word, pride.

    Pride in our country, pride in ourselves and – yes – pride in what this Government is doing. This week – a momentous one indeed – we have seen what Britain is really about.

    Perhaps the moment when it struck me most forcibly was while I listened to the President of the United States speaking the Royal Gallery of the House of Lords.

    Sometimes it takes a friend from abroad to see us as we really are.

    He gave an historic address to both Houses of Parliament against the grandeur and pageantry which only our country can display to such inspiring effect.

    He knows that we are the ally upon whom America can rely in pursuit of the great values which we share:

    – love of freedom;

    – enrichment of democracy;

    – faith in the individual;

    – and the sense of mission and purpose which has so often given us the strength to stand alone in defence of the things we treasure.

    That relationship is not an empty idea from the vacuum of the sound-bite or the easy phrase. Relationships of this sort are not self-sustaining, bestowed by some charitable act of history upon one nation from another. They have to be worked at, fought for, nurtured.

    America would not look to us in any nostalgic sense, because of events long-since past. They look to us because our nation is a rock. An ally whom they know has the same instincts and interests. An ally upon whom they have relied in the past and upon whom they can rely in the future. Generations now gone would easily understand this. We owe it to them to sustain that same spirit and that same commitment. We will enjoy our relationship with the United States because, by our own endeavours, we are a fitting partner.

    In tackling one of the greatest challenges Europe faces today, we can be proud that Britain is there, soon to be joined by America, playing her part.

    The Bosnian peace agreement is a very helpful beginning.

    Success there is vital, not only for Bosnian, but for international security. Vital for the standing of NATO and the health of Europe.

    That’s why Britain is getting ready to send 13,000 troops to Bosnia over the next year.

    Thirteen thousand of the most effective soldiers anywhere in the world, a contingent second to none.

    This wasn’t an easy or cheap decision.

    But it is the right decision.

    Because we’re not afraid to give a lead, as we have done through three years of terrible conflict. This is an issue of massive potential and consequence. I would have made that commitment if it were only for humanitarian reasons, for I hate the loss of life, the brutality, the cynical disregard of every decent value.

    But anyone who has the first understanding of the implications of political collapse in the Balkans realises that Britain’s self interest remains with the peaceful containment and resolution of its problems.

    So we must make sure the peace agreement succeeds, right through to the end.

    Northern Ireland

    Peace is relevant at home as well as abroad.

    The cause of peace in Northern Ireland has received a huge boost this week.

    Can anyone who witnessed President Clinton’s remarkable visit to Northern Ireland seriously contemplate a return to bombing and shooting?

    We saw a Northern Ireland enjoying the prospect of a second Christmas in peace.

    A Northern Ireland hearing him support our call for violence and punishment beatings to cease, for ever.

    Earlier in the week, the Irish Prime Minister and I launched a new initiative. It has two aims, two tracks.

    First, it’s time all the political parties of Northern Ireland began to prepare seriously for negotiations on a just and comprehensive settlement.

    It’s time for them – each of them – to make their contribution to peace.

    Their people, their supporters, want a lasting peace and a fair settlement, not just a ceasefire.

    That’s the unmistakable message from the shops and the factories, the streets and the villages of Northern Ireland.

    We, the Government, can facilitate the process.

    But we can’t decide it.

    The parties themselves have to decide how they are going to negotiate.

    If this process is to succeed – as it must – they must begin to show flexibility.

    No-one can have a veto on progress.

    No-one should be allowed to block the road, by sticking to rigid and uncompromising positions which others can never accept.

    Now is the time for the Northern Ireland parties and their leaders to show open-mindedness, and to have the courage to step out of the bunkers they built during Ulster’s troubles.

    It’s time to put aside the old hatreds and the old feuds and the old mistrusts that have served Ulster ill for too long.

    That is the aim of the preparatory talks we are convening.

    And there’s a second aim to our initiative.

    Some parties represent illegally armed paramilitary organisations which, to this day, are training, plotting, intimidating and making savage assaults on other people.

    If they are to enter constitutional negotiations, they are going to have to change their ways. They are going to have to show that they, like other parties, are committed to exclusively peaceful methods.

    Words aren’t enough.

    So we have set up an advisory international body to discuss how the paramilitaries are going to decommission their arms.

    People who mean peace don’t need guns.

    The time has come for them to start ridding themselves of weapons and explosives so that they, too, can join the constitutional negotiations.

    The British and Irish Governments have again given a lead, just as we did with the Downing Street Declaration two years ago.

    That Declaration led, after several months, to the ceasefires.

    I hope this week’s initiative will lead by the end of February to negotiations for which all parties will qualify.

    It’s now up to them to respond to our lead.

    Getting to this stage in the process has taken years of effort. We have always been working for the long term.

    Three years ago, to talk of peace in Northern Ireland seemed like a grim joke. Today, it is becoming a possibility. Tomorrow, I hope it will be reality.

    The Budget

    Madam Chairman, I said my theme was pride.

    Today’s conference is our opportunity to show how this week’s events (and not just in Bosnia or Northern Ireland) fit in to the long term goals for this country which I set myself five years ago.

    I take pride in the strength of Britain’s economy. I can remember no time in my political lifetime when the economic prospects for our country looked more promising.

    Every politician claims they can create economic success. The difference is, Madam Chairman, we have actually achieved it.

    The best industrial relations for a hundred years, the best inflation record for nearly 50 years, record exports, a third of all the inward investment coming into Europe.

    Madam Chairman, surely and securely, we’re building for Britain’s long term prosperity.

    That’s why I’m proud of the budget Kenneth Clarke delivered this week.

    Well, I read all the pre-Budget options. Bribe people. Take risks. Don’t worry about the long-term, it’s the short-term that matters. I’ve heard it all my life, and I tell you this – I won’t do it. I won’t do it for one overriding reason: it would be wrong for Britain.

    If we’d have taken some of the more flamboyant advice we’d been offered, many of them most forward with their views would have been the first to criticise us for being silly enough to take it. The British people have worked too hard, sacrificed too much to achieve the excellent prospects that lie ahead for us to even consider putting it at risk. We are not that sort of Government.

    Ken Clarke’s Budget had three clear objectives.

    To build on the strength that his earlier Budgets had created.

    To increase the nation’s commitment to raise standards in our classrooms, expand the health service and back the police in their growing success in their fight against crime.

    And to reward those millions of our citizens who have worked so hard to help to build the economic success we now enjoy by giving back to people, in as fair a way as we could devise, a growing share of their own money.

    This morning the Chancellor made an excellent speech outlining his Budget. I warmly congratulate him on it.

    In planning the nation’s finances, it’s vital to get the long term arithmetic right.

    And that’s what we’re determined to do.

    Reducing the overall amount Government spends and borrows. Spending more on our hospitals, schools and police. Leaving more money in people’s pockets by cutting taxes.

    Widening the bands. Cutting the basic rate. And introducing a new, lower 20 per cent rate on savings.

    Now a quarter of all taxpayers will pay tax at 20p.

    In time, 20p will become the basic rate.

    That’s the way to the future. To prosperity that lasts.

    And it’s the way we’ll continue to build a prosperity in which we shall all share.

    Welfare

    But this budget also had measures to deal with other long term issues.

    As more people live longer, paying for their care is one of society’s major challenges.

    To leave our children a welfare system which works and they can afford, we must plan ahead. We are developing imaginative solutions to address the growing cost of long term care.

    So we’re examining how to encourage people to provide for themselves and share the cost with the state. Protecting their wealth so it can be passed on to their heirs.

    And shorter term, we’ll be raising the capital threshold so people who face these costs will be able to keep more of their assets.

    We’ll go on working at this problem.

    We owe it to elderly people. We owe it to our children. And we’ll not just talk about it – we’ll do it.

    Welfare should always be there for elderly people with nowhere to turn. Just as it should be there for the unemployed looking for jobs. The weak and disabled with no support.

    The people of this country are always ready to lend a hand to those who, through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times.

    We have one of the most comprehensive social security safety nets in the world.

    To run it costs the average worker £15 every working day.

    Until recently, the social security budget was rocketing up. Eating into more and more of people’s pay packets. Thanks to the fight against fraud and targeting benefits on those in greatest need, it’s now growing more slowly than the economy as a whole.

    We must keep it that way. And we must ensure that people have incentives to look after themselves and families, and not rely on the state.

    This week’s budget provided more concrete help for the unemployed. We know jobs for the future are created by enterprise, not government.

    But governments can help those who have been out of work for sometime to regain the confidence and work experience they need.

    And we can ensure that people have the incentives and motivation to move from welfare into work.

    In my speech at Blackpool a few weeks ago, I talked about our plans to develop a contract for work.

    And this morning, Gillian Shephard announced we are proceeding with pilots to offer new opportunities for work experience to the long term unemployed.

    The majority who are genuinely seeking work will find this a lifeline. But those who refuse to take an offer of work experience will lose some or all of their benefit.

    Another example, Madam Chairman, of how we develop long term policies to deal with long term problems – and then take real action.

    Once again, we will look with interest at whether the Labour party has the courage to support us.

    Madam Chairman, we’re steadily building the economic foundations to double our living standards in twenty five years.

    Those foundations can easily be wrecked by the wrong policies or the wrong government.

    Compare Ken Clarke’s carefully constructed Budget with Labour’s ramshackle plans.

    Instead of sensible economic policies they offer gimmicks.

    Remember Gordon Brown’s lop tax gimmick? No sooner was it out of his mouth than it became a long term objective, then disappeared into silence.

    The leader of the Labour Party claims that he doesn’t want to put up taxes.

    The Deputy Leader, that affable character from Kingston upon Hull, doesn’t quite agree.

    Labour ‘should not follow the Government down the road of reducing the basic rate of tax’ he said.

    And in case that was just a slip from the mouth of the Humber, he’s also said that under Labour there’d ‘certainly’ be a higher top rate.

    That’s refreshingly frank. And undoubtedly true. But it’s certainly not what the Labour leader told the CBI, or anyone who’d listen.

    I know Labour now say they believe in choice, but the only choice they offer is who to believe: the Labour Leader or the Deputy Leader?

    I know what experience suggests. They’ve voted against tax cuts all their lives.

    They approach every problem with a flapping chequebook. They hold the pen, but it’s your chequebook and your money.

    And spending more means only one thing. They would have to put up taxes. It’s as simple as that.

    Without higher taxes, Labour’s sums don’t add up.

    The Nation

    I don’t usually quote Roy Hattersley with approval, but he was surely right to say Labour has become less a moral crusade and more of a marketing campaign.

    And it needs marketing because it’s a dismal product.

    But, Madam Chairman, while Labour run their marketing campaigns in their own interests, we’re running the country in the national interest.

    We are preparing Britain for the challenges of the future. Immediately ahead of us is the European Council in Madrid.

    I act in Europe with only one interest in mind: Britain’s national interest.

    Sometimes that means we can’t agree with our European partners. If that’s the case, so be it.

    I want Europe to succeed, but not at Britain’s expense.

    The Labour leader says it’s his policy never to be isolated in Europe.

    Think what that would mean.

    Imagine if Margaret Thatcher had never been isolated, we’d never have had our budget rebate worth billions of pounds to British taxpayers.

    If I’d never been isolated we’d have no opt-out from the Single Currency. We’d not have the choice to join or not to join as British interest dictates.

    If I had never been isolated, Britain would now be in the Social Chapter, losing jobs rather than gaining investment.

    Of course, we know that the Labour leader would take us into the Social Chapter. He made out that it was like buffet lunch: you can have some dishes, but not others. Pick and mix. Choose only what you like.

    Of course, European policy is very complex. Some of it is difficult to understand. And the Labour leader hasn’t had any experience of European summits.

    Or, indeed, any summits except Labour summits. And to avoid being isolated at those, he doesn’t invite the Deputy Leader.

    But, on the Social Chapter, he’s plain wrong.

    The Social Chapter is a mechanism, a means to an end. On much of it, there’s no veto. No picking and choosing. You have to swallow the lot.

    Tomorrow, I gather he may be talking about Europe again. Last time, he misled the country. Inadvertently, no doubt. He should put the record straight. We’ll watch to see if he does, and if he doesn’t, we’ll prod him again and again – until he does.

    The fact is – even if you prefer co-operation to confrontation – sometimes it’s necessary to stand up for British interests, even if our partners disagree. I believe that is the job of the British Prime Minister. And if you’re not prepared to do the job, don’t seek it.

    My patriotism is not jingoistic tub-thumping. It’s a deep respect for the people and traditions of our nation.

    The strongest foundation of our society is our United Kingdom.

    Some say the nation state will soon be irrelevant.

    I disagree.

    In a changing world, people want to hang on to what’s familiar. The nation state offers that reassurance and continuity. It matters to people as much today as it ever did.

    I don’t look to mend what isn’t broken. I don’t change things for change’s sake. We are, after all, the Conservative Party.

    But to meet the challenges ahead, we must accept change where change is due.

    That’s why, this week, Michael Forsyth proposed changes to improve the Government of Scotland.

    But we are the Conservative and Unionist Party.

    We must protect the union of proud countries. Some people in Scotland want independence.

    There’s nothing to stop them going their own way. But it’s my task, as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to point out the dangers of that happening.

    Will the Scots feel the Union gives them a better deal if they have to pay the extra Tartan Tax? It’s a straight tax on Scottish jobs, on Scottish investment, on Scotland’s future prosperity.

    Moreover, Labour’s Scottish spokesman has made it clear. He believes the majority of MPs in the Parliament at Westminster should not have the final say on the Laws of Scotland, but must defer to the majority party in Scotland. Would they apply the same proposition to England?

    For on that basis, few past Labour Governments could have Governed England – they had no majority in England. What sort of perversion of our Constitution are they prepared to tolerate?

    Either they fail to grasp the dangers of such devolution, or they’re prepared to sell the crown jewels of our political heritage in a desperate bid for votes. For they are putting the whole constitution of our country into question. As they plan that, how dare they talk of the national interest?

    Down the years, our Union has weathered all that our enemies have thrown at us.

    What folly if Labour were allowed to do what our enemies never achieved – split our island apart and set one people against another. What stupidity.

    Yet, that would be the effect of Labour policy. They offer a tax-raising parliament to out-flank the SNP for their Labour Party advantage. Yet that very Parliament would prove to be the very mechanism to maximise conflict and wreck the Union.

    What an irony it would be. In opposition we know Labour knock our country. If they ever came to power, they would divide it and we would all rue it.

    There’s only one Party that will protect the unity of Britain. That represents our whole nation. That’s our Party – the Conservative and Unionist Party. The Party of the Union. We care for the Union. We care for the nation state. And in our hands – and only our hands – it is safe.

    Peroration

    Wherever I go in the world, Britain’s reputation is on a high.

    The resentments of Empire have been replaced by the affections of commonwealth.

    Britain’s economic revolution is studied and copied across the globe.

    Exports markets daily open wider, for products that are made in Britain and sold from Britain.

    Our military services advise Government across the world because our standards are respected and admired.

    Students flock here from all over the world to take advantage of our academic achievements.

    So yes, I am proud to be Prime Minister of this country. Proud to be Leader of this Party.

    The only Party that believes in Britain. That articulates the success of Britain. That travels the world explaining the triumphs of Britain.

    And if we have to do that against the clamour of the Opposition Parties and despite the relentless self-destruct mode of too much of our national media, we must shout louder, shout longer and shout with more conviction.

    Madam Chairman, we should have more confidence in ourselves and in our Party. We have piloted this country through very rough economic weather.

    We have taken decisions unpopular for our Party because we judged them to be right for our country.

    The fruits of those decisions are now becoming clear.

    We have led this country to an opportunity of unimaginable dimensions. Together, we shall ensure not only that the prizes are there to win, but that we are there to win them.

  • President Clinton’s Speech to the Houses of Parliament – 29 November 1995

    Below is the text of President Clinton’s speech to the Houses of Parliament on Wednesday 29th November 1995.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    My Lord Chancellor, Madam Speaker, Lord Privy Seal, the Lord President of the Council, Mr Prime Minister, My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.

    Lord Chancellor, the longer I hear you talk the more I wish we had an institution like this in American government. I look out and see so many of your distinguished leaders in the House of Lords and I think it might not be a bad place to be after a long political career.

    My wife and I are honoured to be here today and I thank you for inviting me to address you. I have been here to Westminster many times before. As a student, I visited often, and over the last 20 years I have often returned. Always I have felt the power of this place where the voices of free people who love liberty, believe in reason and struggle for truth, have for centuries kept your great nation a beacon of hope for all the world, and a very special model for your former colonies which became the United States of America. Here where the voices of Pitt and Burke, Disraeli and Gladstone rang out, here where the rights of English men and women were secured and enlarged, here where the British people’s determination to stand against the tyrannies of this century were shouted to the entire world, here is a monument to liberty to which every free person owes honour and gratitude.

    As one whose ancestors came from these isles, I cherish this opportunity. Since I entered public life I have often thought of the words of Prime Minister Churchill when he spoke to our Congress in 1941. He said that if his father had been American and his mother British, instead of the other way around, he might have gotten there on his own. Well for a long time I thought that if my forebears had not left this country, perhaps I might have gotten here on my own, at least to the House of Commons. But I have to tell you now our American television carries your Question Time and I have seen Prime Minister Major, and Mr Blair and the other Members slicing each other up face to face with such great wit and skill, against the din of cheers and jeers. I am now convinced my forebears did me a great favour by coming to America.

    Today the United States and the United Kingdom have an extraordinary relationship that unites us in a way never before seen in the ties between two such great nations. It is perhaps all the more remarkable because of our history, first the war we waged for our independence, and then barely three decades later, another war we waged in which your able forces laid siege to our capital. Indeed, the White House still bears the burn marks of that earlier stage in our relationship. And now, whenever we have even the most minor disagreement, I walk out on the Truman Balcony and I look at those burn marks, just to remind myself that I dare not let this relationship get out of hand again.

    In this century, we overcame the legacy of our differences. We discovered our common heritage again, and even more important, we rediscovered our shared values. This November, we are reminded of exactly how the bonds that now join us grew, of the three great trials our nations have faced together in this century.

    A few weeks ago, we marked the anniversary of that day in 1918 when the guns fell silent in World War I, a war we fought side-by-side to defend democracy against militarism and reaction. On this Veterans Day for us and Remembrance Day for you, we both paid special tribute to the British and American generation that, 50 years ago now, in the skies over the channel, on the craggy hills of Italy, in the jungles of Burma, in the flights over the Hump, did not fail or falter. In the greatest struggle for freedom in all of history, they saved the world.

    Our nations emerged from that war with the resolve to prevent another like it. We bound ourselves together with other democracies in the West and with Japan, and we stood firm throughout the long twilight struggle of the Cold War, from the Berlin Airlift of 1948 to the fall of the Berlin Wall on another November day just six years ago.

    In the years since, we have stood together, fighting together for victory in the Persian Gulf; standing together against terrorism, working together to remove the nuclear cloud from our children’s bright future, and together, preparing the way for peace in Bosnia, where your peacekeepers have performed heroically and saved the lives of so many innocent people. I thank the British nation for its strength and its sacrifice through all these struggles. And I am proud to stand here on behalf of the American people to salute you.

    Ladies and gentlemen, in this century, democracy has not merely endured, it has prevailed. Now it falls to us to advance the cause that so many fought and sacrificed and died for. In this new era, we must rise, not in a call to arms, but in a call to peace.

    The great American philosopher, John Dewey, once said, “The only way to abolish war is to make peace heroic”. Well, we know we will never abolish war or all the forces that cause it because we cannot abolish human nature or the certainty of human error. But we can make peace heroic. In so doing, we can create a future even more true to our ideals than all our glorious past. To do so, we must maintain the resolve and peace we shared in war when everything was at stake.

    In this new world our lives are not so very much at risk, but much of what makes life worth living is still very much at stake. We have fought our wars. Now let us wage our peace. This time is full of possibility. The chasm of ideology has disappeared. Around the world, the ideals we defended and advanced are now shared by more people than ever before. In Europe and many other nations, long-suffering people at last control their own destinies. And as the Cold War gives way to the global village, economic freedom is spreading alongside political freedom, bringing with it renewed hope for a better life, rooted in the honourable and healthy competition of effort and ideas.

    America is determined to maintain our alliance for freedom and peace with you and determined to seek the partnership of all like-minded nations to confront the threats still before us. We know the way. Together we have seen how we succeed when we work together.

    When President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill first met on the deck of the HMS Prince of Wales in 1941 at one of the loneliest moments in your nation’s history, they joined in prayer, and the Prime Minister was filled with hope. Afterwards, he said, “The same language, the same hymns, more or less the same ideals. Something big may be happening, something very big.”

    Well, once again, he was right. Something really big happened. On the basis of those ideals, Churchill and Roosevelt and all of their successors built an enduring alliance and a genuine friendship between our nations. Other times in other places are littered with the vows of friendship sworn during battle and then abandoned in peacetime. This one stands alone, unbroken, above all the rest, a model for the ties that should bind all democracies.

    To honour that alliance and the Prime Minister who worked so mightily to create it, I am pleased to announce here, in the home of British freedom, that the United States will name one of the newest and most powerful of its surface ships, a guided missile destroyer, the United States Ship “Winston Churchill”. When that ship slips down the ways in the final year of this century, its name will ride the seas as a reminder for the coming century of an indomitable man who shaped our age, who stood always for freedom, and who showed anew the glorious strength of the human spirit. I thank the members of the Churchill family who are here today with us, Lady Soames, Nicholas Soames, Winston Churchill, and I thank the British people for their friendship and their strength over these many years.

    After so much success together, we know that our relationship with the United Kingdom must be at the heart of our striving in this new era. Because of the history we have lived, because of the power and prosperity we enjoy, because of the accepted truth that you and we have no dark motives in our dealings with other nations, we still bear a burden of special responsibility.

    In these few years since the Cold War, we have met that burden by making gains for peace and security that ordinary people feel every day. We have stepped back from the nuclear precipice with the indefinite extension of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and we hope, next year, a comprehensive test ban treaty.

    For the first time in a generation, parents in Los Angeles and Manchester and, yes, in Moscow, can now turn out the lights at night knowing there are no nuclear weapons pointed at their children. Our nations are working together to lay the foundation for lasting prosperity. We are bringing down economic barriers between nations with the historic GATT agreement and other actions that are creating millions of good jobs for our own people and for people throughout the world. The United States and the United Kingdom are supporting men and women who embrace freedom and democracy the world over with good results, from South Africa to Central Europe, from Haiti to the Middle East.

    In the United States, we feel a special gratitude for your efforts in Northern Ireland. With every passing month, more people walk the streets and live their lives safely, people who otherwise would have been added to the toll of The Troubles.

    Tomorrow, I will have the privilege of being the first American President to visit Northern Ireland, a Northern Ireland where the guns are quiet and the children play without fear. I applaud the efforts of Prime Minister Major and Irish Prime Minister Bruton who announced yesterday their new twin-track initiative to advance the peace process, an initiative that provides an opportunity to begin a dialogue in which all views are represented and all views can be heard.

    This is a bold step forward for peace. I applaud the Prime Minister for taking this risk for peace. It is always a hard choice, the choice for peace, for success is far from guaranteed, and if you fail, there will be those who resent you for trying. But it is the right thing to do. And in the end, the right will win.

    Despite the progress we have made in all these areas and despite the problems clearly still out there, there are those who say at this moment of hope we can afford to relax now behind our secure borders. Now is the time, they say, to let others worry about the world’s troubles. These are the siren songs of myth. They once lured the United States into isolationism after World War I. They counselled appeasement to Britain on the very brink of World War II. We have gone down that road before. We must never go down that road again. We will never go down that road again.

    Though the Cold War is over, the forces of destruction challenge us still. Today, they are armed with a full array of threats, not just the single weapon of frontal war. We see them at work in the spread of weapons of mass destruction, from nuclear smuggling in Europe to a phial of sarin gas being broken open in the Tokyo subway, to the bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York. We see it in the growth of ethnic hatred, extreme nationalism, and religious fanaticism, which most recently took the life of one of the greatest champions of peace in the entire world, the Prime Minister of Israel. We see it in the terrorism that, in recent months, has murdered innocent people from Islamabad to Paris, from Riyadh to Oklahoma City. And we see it in the international organized crime and drug trade that poisons our children and our communities.

    In their variety, these forces of disintegration are waging guerrilla wars against humanity. Like communism and fascism, they spread darkness over light, barbarism over civilization. And like communism and fascism, they will be defeated only because free nations join against them in common cause.

    We will prevail again if, and only if, our people support the mission. We are, after all, democracies, and the people are the ultimate bosses of our fate. I believe the people will support this. I believe free people, given the information, will make the decisions that will make it possible for their leaders to stand against the new threat to security and freedom and to peace and prosperity.

    I believe they will see that this hopeful moment cannot be lost without grave consequences to the future. We must go out to meet the challenges before they come to threaten us. Today, for the United States and for Great Britain, that means we must make the difference between peace and war in Bosnia.

    For nearly four years, a terrible war has torn Bosnia apart, bringing horrors we prayed had vanished from the face of Europe forever, the mass killings, the endless columns of refugees, the campaigns of deliberate rape, the skeletal persons imprisoned in concentration camps. These crimes did violence to the conscience of Britons and Americans.

    Now we have a chance to make sure they do not return, and we must seize it. We must help peace take hold in Bosnia, because as long as that fire rages at the heart of the European continent, as long as the emerging democracies and our allies are threatened by fighting in Bosnia, there will be no stable, undivided, free Europe. There will be no realization of our greatest hopes for Europe. But most important of all, innocent people will continue to suffer and die.

    America fought two world wars and stood with you in the Cold War because of our vital stake in a Europe that is stable, strong, and free. With the end of the Cold War, all of Europe has a chance to be stable, strong, and free for the very first time since nation states appeared on the European continent.

    Now the warring parties in Bosnia have committed themselves to peace, and they have asked us to help them make it hold, not by fighting a war, but by implementing their own peace agreement. Our nations have a responsibility to answer the request of those people to secure their peace. Without our leadership and without the presence of NATO, there will be no peace in Bosnia. I thank the United Kingdom, which has already sacrificed so much for its swift agreement to play a central role in the peace implementation. With this act, Britain holds true to its history and to its values. And I pledge to you that America will live up to its history and its ideals as well.

    We know that if we do not participate in Bosnia, our leadership will be questioned and our partnerships will be weakened, partnerships we must have if we are to help each other in the fight against the common threats we face. We can help the people of Bosnia as they seek a way back from savagery to civility. And we can build a peaceful, undivided Europe.

    Today, I reaffirm to you that the United States, as it did during the defence of democracy during the Cold War, will help lead in building this Europe by working for a broader and more lasting peace and by supporting a Europe bound together in a woven fabric of vital democracies, market economies, and security cooperation.

    Our cooperation with you through NATO, the sword and shield of democracy, can help the nations that once lay behind the Iron Curtain become a part of the new Europe. In the Cold War, the alliance kept our nation secure and bound the Western democracies together in a common cause. It brought former adversaries together and gave them the confidence to look past ancient enmities. Now, NATO will grow and expand the circle of common purpose, first through its Partnership for Peace, which is already having a remarkable impact on the member countries; and then, as we agree, with the admission of new democratic members. It will threaten no one. But it will give its new allies the confidence they need to consolidate their freedoms, build their economies, strengthen peace, and become your partners for tomorrow.

    Members of the House of Commons and noble lords: Long before there was a United States, one of your most powerful champions of liberty and one of the greatest poets of our shared language wrote: “Peace hath her victories, no less renowned than war.” In our time, at last, we can prove the truth of John Milton’s words.

    As this month of remembrance passes and the holidays approach, I leave you with the words Winston Churchill spoke to America during America’s darkest holiday season of the century. As he lit the White House Christmas Tree in 1941, he said,

    “Let the children have their night of fun and laughter. Let us share to the full in their unstinted pleasure before we turn again to the stern tasks in the year that lies before us. But now, by our sacrifice and bearing, these same children shall not be robbed of their inheritance or denied their right to live in a free and decent world.”

    My friends, we have stood together in the darkest moments of our century. Let us now resolve to stand together for the bright and shining prospect of the next century. It can be the age of possibility and the age of peace. Our forebears won the war. Let us now win the peace.

    May God bless the United Kingdom, the United States, and our solemn alliance. Thank you very much.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with President Clinton – 29 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with President Clinton, held in London on Wednesday 29th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly welcome the President here to London. I am delighted he has been able to come at what is I know for him an extremely busy time, and he and Mrs Clinton are extremely welcome guests here.

    The President has come to London fresh from explaining to Congress and the American people his plans for a very large United States contribution to the Peace Implementation Force in Bosnia. Bosnia is and has been for some years a shared responsibility. British troops have been there now for something over three years in numbers ranging up to 8,000 at a time. And both of our countries have made huge contributions to the international aid effort. What I think we now need to do is to carry the remarkable Dayton Agreement through to a successful conclusion. Dayton was a very hard won and hugely important breakthrough by the United States and her Contact Group partners. And for the first time in the many discussions over the years that the President and I have had on Bosnia, we can look this morning at a realistic prospect of a real and lasting peace in Bosnia. But it is still a fragile prospect and we need to make sure that it doesn’t, in some fashion, just slip away from us. And that is why we both agree that it is vital to deploy a genuinely effective implementation force to Bosnia as soon as the peace agreements come into effect.

    I very much welcome the President’s intention to contribute a large force to that particular cause. I can certainly confirm that we shall do the same, we intend to make a large contribution, around 13,000 troops would be the size of the British contribution to that force. They will find themselves working in the future, as so many times in the past, with their American colleagues in a common endeavour and I believe it is an endeavour of immense importance to the future of Bosnia and to many places beyond it. And I look forward to the Peace Implementation Conference in London in a couple of weeks time which will work on the very important civil aspects of that peace agreement.

    The President and I this morning have also had the opportunity of talking about Northern Ireland and about the twin track initiative that I launched yesterday with the Irish Prime Minister. I am delighted that the President will tomorrow become the first serving United States President to visit Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that that will give a huge encouragement to the people in Northern Ireland who have been working for peace, and I am sure that it will boost the very valuable help that George Mitchell will be giving us in his work, for he has generously agreed to undertake the work, as Chairman of the new body, to look at the question of decommissioning.

    George Mitchell of course is no stranger to the situation in Northern Ireland and over the years has given us very great help in promoting investment in Northern Ireland’s economy. So I think the Chairmanship of the international body is in very good hands and I am very grateful to Senator Mitchell for undertaking it and to the President for permitting that.

    I had the opportunity with the President this morning of discussing the present situation in Northern Ireland. What I hope people will see with his visit there in a day or so is the changed life in Northern Ireland. For far too long the world has been very familiar with the negative side of Northern Ireland. I think the President’s visit will enable him and his colleagues to see how very dramatically life has changed there over the past 15 months and we look forward to carrying that further.

    We had the opportunity of discussing a number of other matters, but I think in the limited time available I won’t touch upon those at the moment, but I will invite the President to say a few words.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Thank you very much, Prime Minister. This is my sixth trip Europe as President and the latest of the many, many sessions I have had with Prime Minister Major. Europe and the United States have unbreakable ties, but the United Kingdom and the United States enjoy a unique and enduring relationship. Because of our values and the work we have done together over the last fifty years, the things we stand for are more and more becoming widely accepted all around the world. Today we discussed our on-going efforts to reinforce our partnership, to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction, to combat terrorism, international crime and drug trafficking, and to advance the global march of peace. And of course we mostly discussed Northern Ireland and Bosnia.

    Let me begin by just congratulating the Prime Minister on the important initiative that he and Prime Minister Bruton announced yesterday to advance the process of peace in Northern Ireland. The twin-track initiative will establish an international body to address arms decommissioning and at the same time will initiate preliminary political talks in which all parties will be invited to participate. This is an opportunity for them to begin a dialogue in which all views are represented and all voices are heard.

    I cannot say enough to the British people how much I appreciate and admire the Prime Minister in taking this kind of risk for peace. This was not an easy action for him to take, not an easy action for Prime Minister Bruton to take. Very often people who take risks for peace are not appreciated for doing so. But we in the United States appreciate this work and hope very much that it will prove fruitful.

    Tomorrow I will visit a Northern Ireland that is closer to true peace than at any time in a generation. And the risks that have been taken to date by the Prime Minister and by the Irish Prime Minister and his predecessor are a big reason why.

    The United Kingdom has also taken extraordinary risks for peace in Bosnia. The United States deeply appreciates all this country has done to end the suffering in Bosnia – your brave soldiers who risked their lives as part of UNPROFOR, your countless humanitarian relief efforts to aid the people of that war-torn land, your diplomatic and military strength as members of the Contact Group and NATO. Now the people of Bosnia have made a commitment to peace and we have to do our part to help it succeed. That means participating in NATO’s Implementation Force, not to fight a war in Bosnia but to help secure a peace, it means implementing the arms control provisions of that agreement while ensuring that the Bosnian Federation has the means to defend itself once NATO withdraws, and it means supporting the reconstruction of Bosnia so that all the people there can share in the benefits of peace. If we can secure the peace in Bosnia and I am convinced that we can and will, that will bring us a step closer to the goal of a free, peaceful and undivided Europe.

    The Prime Minister and I discussed developments in Russia, including the up-coming parliamentary election, and agreed that fuller integration of Russia in Europe remains a key goal that both of us share. We also reaffirmed our joint determination to open NATO to new membership in a gradual and open way.

    I also welcomed the priority the United Kingdom has given to strengthen the Atlantic community. This weekend at the summit meeting between the United States and the European Union in Madrid, I hope we can agree on a vigorous Atlantic agenda that we can both work to implement.

    Let me just close by saying that we live in a time of remarkable opportunity for peace and prosperity, for open markets and open societies, for human dignity and human decency. Together the United States and the United Kingdom have helped to shape this hopeful moment in our history. We have some more work to do, we just talked about two of our biggest challenges but I am confident that our people are up to those challenges and that that work will be done.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Now, the President has a speech to deliver in Parliament not very long ahead, but we can take a few questions.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    President Clinton, was one of the things you discussed arming and training the Bosnian military and how will that work as part of this peace process?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Yes, we discussed that. But in our roles as part of the NATO mission, neither the NATO forces of the United States nor the United Kingdom will be involved in that. There is an agreement among the parties that they will work for six months to achieve an arms control agreement, that they will do everything they can to agree on a fair way to reduce the number of arms in Bosnia, that if they fail to reach agreement there will be a 25 percent reduction by all the parties in the region preserving roughly the ratio of arms that exist now between Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia, but at a smaller level, and that within Bosnia proper the Bosnian Federation will have a roughly 2 – 1 ratio of arms, and that that will have to be supplied in terms of equipment and training by third parties, which we are confident will occur.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson):

    Do you accept the British government’s position that there must be some giving up of arms by the paramilitaries, and especially by Sinn Fein/IRA before all-party talks can begin?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I accept the British government’s position announced yesterday in the twin-track, that is I believe the agreement reflected in what Prime Minister Bruton and Prime Minister Major announced yesterday set forth a framework within which these differences of opinion can be resolved, and I hope the framework will be accepted by all the parties. My answer to you, Sir, is that the United States, whether it is in the Middle East or Bosnia or Northern Ireland has tried to support a reasonable peace process, not to dictate the terms or make the decisions. The twin track process is a reasonable peace process and it is not for us to get into the details of the judgments that the countries and the parties will have to make.

    QUESTION:

    What broke the camel’s back on this? You have been arguing for so long on this one issue, what was the one thing that turned the tide?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were a whole range of points we have been discussing over the last few days, it wasn’t just the decommissioning issue, there were a range of other issues as well. And I think time wore away the difference, time and patience on both sides. I think the number of meetings that there have been over the last few weeks, the number of discussions I have had with John Bruton, I have absolutely no doubt both our telephone bills will be astronomical but we think it is worthwhile, it was simply that we saw that a deal needed to be reached if we were to gain the momentum and carry this process forward. We can’t deliver peace. John Bruton and I, we can’t do that.

    What we can do is facilitate peace and what we are putting in place is a process that will help to carry that capacity for peace forward. That can be achieved if the politicians in the north are able to reach themselves an agreement that this conflict is over, and what we were seeking was a mechanism of carrying this forward so that that work would continue. But I emphasise the point, peace is not in my gift or in John Bruton’s gift, it is in the gift of all the people who at present have caused the conflict. We must bring them together, constant examining of the detailed problems found a way through.

    QUESTION:

    Did the President’s trip have anything to do with that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the fact that the President was coming concentrated the mind.

    QUESTION:

    Are you prepared to accompany the President to Belfast on any part of his trip and, like the President, are you prepared to meet all the party leaders in Northern Ireland now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have met most of the party leaders in Northern Ireland, in due course I will meet them all, I won’t be meeting them all quite yet. And I think the President is being accompanied by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I will be answering questions in Parliament.

    QUESTION:

    Is your message to the IRA that they should start surrendering their weapons and explosives now, immediately?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    My message to the IRA is that the twin track process has provided a mechanism for all the parties honourably now to bring their concerns to the table and to be heard, and that in the end peace means peace and we are all going to have to support that. But the message I should give in public is the same message I would give in private. I think the framework set out by Prime Minister Major and Prime Minister Bruton is the best opportunity I have seen to resolve all these issues and I think it should be embraced, and I think it will be.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think the President has been too accommodating to Mr Adams or do you think his efforts have been worthwhile?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it is a question of being accommodating at all. American support in this process has always been immensely helpful and the President has always taken a very great interest in that process. There is a communal interest in achieving a satisfactory settlement in Northern Ireland, it is very much in the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland, very close to my heart and something very close to the President’s heart as well, and I welcome the tremendous support he has given both publicly and privately, I think that has been very helpful and I am very pleased to have the opportunity of thanking him for it in public.

    Thank you very much indeed.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Thank you.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on Bosnia – 21 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on Bosnia, issued on 21st November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When I saw President Izetbegovic recently, I said that the door to peace was swinging open. Now it seems that this has happened. Many thousands of people have died in this conflict. Many thousands more have been saved by the actions of British troops and their allies. I warmly welcome today’s agreement. It has taken courage on everyone’s part to overcome the many difficult issues at stake. But the people of Bosnia can now look forward to a peaceful future: a very different prospect to the grim realities of the last three years.

    I am delighted that the political process that we set in train at the London Conference three years ago has finally borne fruit, and I congratulate all those who have brought it about. This outcome would not have been achieved without the efforts over many months of the Contact Group countries – the US, European Union and the Russian Federation working together – and of the United Nations. I would also like to recall the work of those who laid the groundwork for today’s achievement, notably Lords Carrington and Owen, Cy Vance, Thorvald Stoltenberg and Carl Bildt.

    It is vital now to ensure that the settlement is implemented successfully. We look to the parties to respect the obligations they have undertaken and to cooperate actively with the implementation effort. The international community in turn will play its part.

    The UK has played a leading role in the search for a peaceful settlement and in alleviating suffering. We shall maintain our efforts in the new tasks which lie ahead, including at a Peace Implementation Conference which we plan to convene in London shortly. This will bring together the governments, organisations and agencies directly involved in implementing a settlement, to work out the practicalities of how best to put today’s agreement into place.

  • PMQT – 31 October 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Winnick: Why did the Prime Minister in his meeting with the French President not condemn French nuclear tests, which have deeply offended British and international opinion? Did the Prime Minister not take such action because the British Government have connived with the French in a dirty deal whereby information arising from the nuclear tests will be passed on to this country? If that is the case, it shows the dishonesty of the Government.

    The Prime Minister: It is not the case. As I have said before, no information from the French nuclear tests will be passed to us–indeed, given the nature of our weapons, it would not be of use to us. There is no deal; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that and withdraw his allegation.

    At least the hon. Gentleman is consistent in his views. He has been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and he is, and he saluted the courage and determination of anti-nuclear demonstrators at Greenham Common. [Interruption.] I trail my coat to find out where Labour Members’ hearts are, and now we know.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mrs. Lait: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement that one of London’s most popular grant-maintained schools, the Oratory school, will be able to build a choir school, thanks to its self-governing status in the public sector? While that may be music to the ears of the parents with children at the school, how does my right hon. Friend think that the rest of the Labour Front Benchers will react?

    The Prime Minister: Of course I welcome that news.

    Grant-maintained schools have a greater freedom to develop their strengths because power is put where it should belong: with the school head, the school governors and the parents who know best what is in their children’s interests.

    Mr. Blair: Is it– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Stop this barracking–particularly from Ministers.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm as a matter of fact that what the chairman of the rail users’ watchdog as well as the Transport Select Committee have said is true: that, as a result of privatisation, an extra £700 million of taxpayers’ money will be paid to the subsidised, privatised railways?

    The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that over the years we have increased resources to the nationalised British rail industry. Contrary to what has been said by some people, the Government have supported record levels of investment. We made it clear when we decided to proceed with privatisation that we would support lines that were socially necessary–partly at the request of Her Majesty’s Opposition. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe now that we should not do that.

    Mr. Blair: Is it not right that the Select Committee attributed the extra £700 million to privatisation, not to paying for socially useful routes, and that hundreds of millions of pounds of City fees are involved? Is it not also true that investment in the railways today is half what it was two years ago and that, as a result of privatisation, 5,000 manufacturing industry jobs have been lost and the unified railway network has been broken up into 70, 80 or 90 companies?

    When will the Prime Minister, just for once, stop pandering to the right wing of the Conservative party? [Interruption.] Conservative Members may want rail privatisation: the British people do not. When will the right hon. Gentleman stop pandering to the right wing of his party and, instead, listen to and speak up for the British people, who want their railways run as a public service?

    The Prime Minister: I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman would get round to his “lurch to the right” campaign, launched so inexpertly–one might almost say he made a hash of it–by the new shadow Chief Whip.

    If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the policies we are following, of bringing choice to parents and opportunity to children, are a lurch to the right, the country will not agree. If he thinks that spending more on patients’ health is a lurch to the right, the people will not agree. If he thinks that dealing with asylum abuses, or standing up for Britain in Europe, represent a lurch to the right, he is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the centre right of politics is our ground and there is no way a squatter like him can rest on it. He may regard himself as the Trojan horse of socialism, but he will find that it is our land on which he is parking and there is no room for him on it.

    As for the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point, and pushing aside the points on which he was inaccurate, I would tell him that there have been record amounts of investment in recent years–£1.5 billion in 1992-93, which was the highest for 30 years. Investment is still running at more than £1 billion in the current year, and every privatisation that we have introduced has provided better service. I see the new shadow Chief Whip in his place. It was he who once referred to the privatisation of British Airways as the pantomime horse of capitalism. It is now the most successful privatised air service in the world.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that positive discrimination in favour of women is both unnecessary and patronising? Will he comment on the policy of the Labour party, which has imposed by diktat from Walworth road–

    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the attitude of the Labour party. I am sure that he has caught the first part of the hon. Lady’s question and is perfectly capable of answering it.

    Mrs. Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will never impose women-only shortlists, as has been done by diktat of Walworth road in six constituencies in the north-west of England?

    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that I believe that we should seek equality of opportunities for everyone, for women in the House of Commons and elsewhere. It is certainly our policy to do so. My hon. Friends needed no special discrimination to get here. As to the latter part of my hon. Friend’s question, I can promise her–not only in this but in other matters–that we will not follow the policies of the Opposition, because, apart from anything else, daily they seem to be following our policies.

    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister consider these three dates? On 11 July, Srebrenica fell and 8,000 young men were taken away and massacred. On 31 May, I asked the then Secretary of State for Defence, in the House, to assure me that the policy on the defence of Srebrenica had not changed, and he gave me that assurance. It is now revealed, or claimed, that on 24 May, with the full knowledge and acquiescence of the British Government, the UN decided to abandon Srebrenica to its fate. Is that correct?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, just occasionally, might do the British forces and the British Government the credit of acknowledging what they have done. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is not correct. He has been wrong throughout the whole of this episode time after time. He has denigrated what the British Government have done and what the British armed forces have done. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman this: there are hundreds of thousands of people alive today in Bosnia because of what was done by the British Government and the British armed forces.

    Mr. Elletson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a successful conference this year in my constituency? Is he aware that next year the Labour party will be in Blackpool? Will he take this opportunity to reassure parents and police in my constituency that under a Conservative Government cannabis cigarettes will never be for sale?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance and I will tell the House why very clearly. The vast majority of people–between 80 and 90 per cent.–who move on to hard drugs graduate to hard drugs having first experimented with soft drugs. Any sensible person realises the danger of doing that and realises that any responsible person in public life would discourage the use of soft drugs because of the danger of moving to hard drugs. I am sorry that some Opposition Members with some responsibility in public life should choose to take a different view.

     

    Q3. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Dowd: Given the Government’s latest response to the recommendations of the Nolan committee, when will the Prime Minister stop his feeble backtracking on his alleged intention to improve the standards of conduct of Ministers and stop trying to defend the snout in the trough behaviour of so many on the Benches behind him?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows–or should know, if he took an interest in our matters–that the Nolan report is at present being considered by the Select Committee. It will very shortly be brought before the House, when we will have the benefit of the deliberations of the Select Committee and when the House can then vote on all the recommendations that emanate from it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter–the characteristically pompous letter–from the leader of the Liberal party, inviting Conservative Members of Parliament to back his party on education? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best response to that has come from a Harrow Liberal councillor, Bernadette Murphy, who says that the arguments for the Conservative education system are unanswerable and that every party should understand that? Will he congratulate her on reinforcing her message by resigning from the council and causing a by-election and giving such a clear steer as to how people should vote in that by-election?

    The Prime Minister: I did see the letter from the right hon. Gentleman, which he displayed so widely among my colleagues. I recall that the letter also said:

    “This is the moment to stand up for what is right and to put Britain first.”

    Clearly, Miss Murphy did.

     

    Q5. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October.

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

    Mr. Sutcliffe: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that Britain requires a job skills audit? We have fallen from 21st to 24th in the league, according to the World Economic Forum’s report on skill shortages. Is that because the Government do not invest in education and training? Is it not about time that the Government recognised that education and training are vital to our economy?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated a skill shortage in answering questions. [Laughter] It is clear– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    The Prime Minister: It is clear that Opposition Members’ new standards of behaviour are only for certain occasions.

    Of course my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is right to examine the level of skills. He has done that to enable us to ensure that we can build on what has already been done to improve skills in the country. That is the purpose of the changes that have been made. That is the purpose of the training and enterprise councils; that is the purpose of investment. It is because of the increasing skills and increasing investment that our exports–not least in manufacturing–are performing better today than they have for many years.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Award Ceremony – 30 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the award ceremony for General Michael Rose and General Bertrand de Sauville de la Presle, held in High Wycombe on Monday 30th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In a few moments and President and I will have the pleasure and privilege of honouring General de la Presle and General Rose for their work together in Bosnia over recent years. I would like just, if I may, to say a word about the award that I shall making to General de la Presle.

    It is a remarkable example of what can be achieved in the most difficult circumstances. With General Rose, General de la Presle held very high responsibility for military operations in an area of the highest political and military complexities. There were no guiding stars as to how to cope with the extraordinarily difficult circumstances of Bosnia, there were no historical guidelines to deal with the particular level of problems that were faced there. And yet General de la Presle played a leading role in a new kind of military activity, an operation in which, almost uniquely, there were no clear enemies, but in an operation that was fraught with a great deal of danger. And in this, perhaps not uniquely, but unusually, political judgement was as important in his responsibilities as military skill.

    The General led a military force comprising a range of nations. And yet on the ground at the same time he was dealing with different parties with a long history of mutual antagonisms, a history that as we have seen only too vividly was violent and often uncontainable.

    And that is why I say there was no relevant experience from the past to go on. There were no books to tell people precisely what one did in those set of circumstances for they were strange and novel circumstances. It was hard to establish guidelines because the problems were changing, fluid, but more important than being fluid, inconsistent and unpredictable, not so much on a weekly basis but perhaps on an hourly basis.

    The key to the General’s success, if I may be permitted to say so having observed from afar, was predominantly in the example set in working so closely with senior commanders, ensuring that everybody was absolutely up-to-date with what needed to be done, absolutely up-to-date with the latest tactical situation and completely aware of the strategic challenge facing the forces in Bosnia.

    The results of that leadership I believe speak for themselves, both in terms of what was achieved at the time and in terms of the groundwork that was laid for those who came subsequently to achieve more. It was a very remarkable achievement indeed and I am delighted in a few moments that on behalf of Her Majesty I shall be honouring the General.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Chirac – 30 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Chirac, held in London on Monday 30th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly welcome you to this press conference. This has been my seventh meeting with President Chirac in the last 6 months and on this occasion he has brought a very powerful team of his Ministers with him.

    This morning our Foreign Ministers, Defence Ministers, Finance Ministers, Transport Ministers, have all held separate discussions and subsequently reported to us about them. Collectively we have reached a number of wide ranging decisions.

    Let me just firstly say that this morning the President and I visited RAF Strike Command at High Wycombe. And we did so for two special reasons. Firstly, to inaugurate the Franco-British Air Group; and secondly, to present decorations to General and General Rose who worked so successfully for so long together in Bosnia.,

    I think that that ceremony, both the inauguration of the Air Group and the joint award of Honours, illustrates the increasingly close partnership that is developing between France and the United Kingdom. It is a global partnership and that theme of global partnership has been the dominant theme throughout this summit. Let me set out precisely what I mean by that.

    Britain and France are both European countries a worldwide outlook. We are the only nuclear powers in Western Europe. We each make a huge contribution to the overall defence of Europe. We are the largest European contributors to United Nations peacekeeping. We are Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council and participants in the Economic Summits. And we both have obligations to parts of the world, like Africa, where we have long-standing and historic ties.

    In defence, upon which we spent a great deal of our time this morning, the President and I have concluded that the vital interests of one could not be threatened without the vital interests of the other equally being at risk.

    Step by step in defence, our approaches are moving closer together. In defence procurement, Britain has a wider range of joint projects with France than with any other country. We are discussing together the most effective structures for European defence, drawing on the lessons that we have learned In Bosnia.

    The Franco-British Euro-air Group is one bilateral dimension. We have decided on another – new arrangements for the Royal Navy and the French Navy to exercise and to train together.

    We have made important progress in deepening our nuclear cooperation. Our aim is to strengthen deterrence whilst retaining the independence of our nuclear forces. This deepening of cooperation will strengthen the overall European contribution to deterrence.

    Our Armed Forces, taking all aspects together, are closer today than at any time in the last 50 years, and the President and I shall look for yet further defence cooperation.

    We discussed the full range of European questions. We have a different approach to some of those questions, but we agreed to work together on a number of aspects at the Intergovernmental Conference. Subsidiarity is an area where we have a shared interest and concern. Subsidiarity – that is keeping or returning decision-making to the national level. We discussed, and have a common interest, in a more effective common foreign and security policy based on an intergovernmental agreement. We have a common approach to justice and home affairs matters and for the role of national parliaments. And we agreed to continue discussion on these and a number of other aspects that we are likely to face at the Intergovernmental Conference.

    We spent some time discussing the removing of regulations and red tape. We both agreed that small businesses had a vital role to play in our economies as generators both of employment in the future and of growth. And we have decided therefore to launch a joint initiative to reduce burdens on business and will invite businessmen from both countries to contribute to that work.

    Both of us have long, historic and very strong interests in Africa. We are launching today a joint initiative on conflict resolution and peacekeeping in Africa. We shall help African countries to develop their own capabilities and shall invite Western European Union partners to join us in sending advisory teams to Africa.

    You should, I hope, find on your chairs a detailed note of further joint approaches which we will take in Africa. These include a number of matters which you may wish to raise in questions but will not detain you with now.

    Let me just highlight four others of the many subjects we discussed.

    The first of these is Bosnia. We will continue working closely together on Bosnia and will both make a large contribution to the peace negotiations and the implementation of a peace settlement.

    Second, terrorism. I deplore the recent bombings that there have been in France. I have promised President Chirac every possible assistance and we have agreed on specific steps to enhance cooperation between France and the United Kingdom in dealing both with terrorism and with organised crime.

    On United Nations reform, about which we both spoke at the UN meeting just a few days ago, we both want to see effective follow through to the work of the G8.

    And finally, on a very positive note, we are launching the Entente Cordial Scholarship Scheme. This is an imaginative scheme that will be privately funded to help young people in Britain and in France to study in each other’s language and in each other’s country.

    Those are just the sketchy headlines of what has been, I think we both believe, a particularly productive summit.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I have nothing to add to the substance of what the Prime Minister has said, I have nothing to change in what he has said.

    As to the specific details, we shall be happy, both of us, to take questions from the press and I am very happy to welcome members of the British, French and other press corps as well.

    But let me make one comment, if I may, to start with. I have been attending French/British meetings for many years now and I have followed how these meetings have progressed and I am most struck by the sea-change which has occurred in our discussions. In Franco/British relations today there is no trace whatsoever of a gracility of ill humour. I think it has become quite natural for us to talk about everything, to discuss everything frankly and openly, to discuss matters which bring us together as well as matters which can divide us. But there is no drama about it, it happens quite naturally and openly.

    And on an increasing number of subjects all the time we have increasingly convergent views on these issues which are the challenges for our countries in the future. In other words, we have a greater and greater awareness all the time of the increasing solidarity of the destiny of our two countries, and that is extremely pleasant, this friendly atmosphere, this atmosphere of friendship which goes beyond us politicians but which concerns our countries and our systems. And I am very struck and impressed by this increasing closeness between France and Britain.

    QUESTION:

    President Chirac, particularly on the point of terrorism, do you think the British government is doing everything it can to prevent a spill-over from the Algerian war taking place in Britain and to stop Britain being used as a haven by Islamic radicals?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    As far as the fight against terrorism is concerned, I do not think, I am absolutely convinced that the British government is fully determined to do everything it can. I am convinced that there is excellent cooperation between the British and French services involved. And I have only thanks to express to the British authorities on these two scores.

    I would add that the Prime Minister wished to go beyond even that and proposed to me a strengthening of our cooperation in the fight against terrorism, and he also proposed to me that we should strengthen our cooperation in the fight against drugs, and I thoroughly agree with him on those two counts.

    QUESTION:

    Could I ask you both what the significance to Anglo/French relations, and indeed to nuclear cooperation, you find in the British decision to back French nuclear testing over the protestations of the Commonwealth?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me respond to that point first. President Chirac had scientific advice about the necessity to test the French nuclear deterrent. I think on the back of that scientific advice it would have been extremely difficult for the head of any country not to have accepted that scientific advice and tested, as advised, his own nuclear deterrent. Upon that basis, I have offered the President my support for the action that he has taken. If one is a nuclear power there are certain obligations. Some of those obligations involve ensuring that the nuclear weapon is in proper order, that it is working as expected. And one does need in those circumstances to test, if that is the advice one is given. That is the advice the President was given, he accepted that advice. Frankly, I believe he had no choice and upon that basis I have offered him my support.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Support for which I am most grateful and which is also part and parcel of the solidarity of countries of the European Union. But I would also like to say that I was fully aware of the reaction that international public opinion would have when I took my decision. But the decision was absolutely inevitable for the safety and the reliability of French nuclear weapons. It would have been irresponsible of me not to take that decision. That is the negative answer to your question if you like. But there is a positive answer to your question too, which is that I am now in a position to confirm that France, as the United Kingdom, will sign the full Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and that France and the United Kingdom have both said that they will support the zero option on on-site controls, no small tests, no tests whatsoever, that France and the United Kingdom have just signed the Protocols of the Ruratonga Treaty which next spring will make it possible to declare the South Pacific a nuclear-free zone. And therefore there will be no further problem of nuclear testing.

    The United States, as you know, have agreed too to the zero option. In my recent discussions with the Russian President I understood him to say that that would be Russia’s position too. I am not answering in Russia’s place of course but I understood that would be his position. And I would not rule out China taking the same position too, and that would be a very optimistic and positive conclusion to the whole affair.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The President, on behalf of France, the Americans and the British have agreed to sign the Protocols to the Ruratonga Convention. I think that is very welcome. What we can actually now see, not very far in the future, just a few months away, is an end to nuclear testing and the signature of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. That is now, with luck, just a matter of months away and I think that is great progress and I am delighted about that.

    QUESTION (Jon Snow, Channel 4 News):

    When you became President, one of the earliest public pronouncements you made, or one that was recognised worldwide, was the offer to send French troops to save the people of Srebrenica. The Dutch government has today published its findings over what happened in Srebrenica and sad reading they make. The Dutch Defence Minister says that the whole concept of the so-called safe areas failed dismally. Could I ask you both whether as members of the Permanent Five Security Council of the UN you accept any culpability, any blame, for what went wrong and the fact that we are now sitting in a situation in which 8,000 citizens of that area are either dead or missing?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    You are referring of course to events which occurred as I became President. I believe that the United Nations forces were not able to fulfil the role that they were supposed to play. And I think it was wrong in the past to accept that confusion between a military role and a humanitarian role and the result was that events of that kind did occur. Who was responsible? Certainly not the United Nations because the United Nations was not given to proper mandate to act. I think it was a collective responsibility, I think that the British and French governments realised that when they decided together to react to what happening, to change their policies and to set up together the Rapid Reaction Force. And a lot of observers made fun of the Rapid Reaction Force when it was announced initially, but it did make it possible to give the troops the resources they needed to attain their objective, which was a peacekeeping objective and which was I think behind the positive developments that we have witnessed since.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is perhaps sometimes a little too easy to overlook the reality that it is the British and the French, and their troops on the ground, who have played the biggest single role of turning what looked like at one stage a trans-Balkan war, and at another stage like the mass genocide and slaughter of huge numbers of people, into a position where across central Bosnia there is peace and where we can now look forward to the possibility of a peace right the way across Bosnia. That would not have happened but for the action of the British and French governments who sent the largest number of troops and sent the troops not only in the largest numbers but sent them earliest. There were also those countries who participated predominantly in the conferences that were held and that determined with the Rapid Reaction Corps to respond to some of the events that were occurring. So, no-one doubts the horrors from the early genocide and subsequently what occurred in the former Yugoslavia, but I think the British and French troops played the predominant role in mitigating the slaughter and saving lives. And I do not think it an exaggerated claim to say that but for the activities of British and French soldiers and their commanders, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people alive today who would otherwise have been dead. And I think in the scales of who did what and what the outcome was, that is something that should weigh heavily.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Could you clarify this statement where you say you do not see situations arising where the vital interests of either France or the United Kingdom could be threatened – is that like the NATO declaration that if one country is invaded, could you tell us what it means?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I don’t think I need to elaborate a great deal on this. We are very strongly linked politically, economically, culturally and geographically, and I am not referring to the Channel fixed link. I am referring quite clearly to the fact that we are very close to each other. But clearly one cannot imagine a situation where in the immediate future or in the foreseeable future a conflict might occur in which France and Britain would not be on the same side, we will clearly be on the same side, and I think we must draw some conclusions from that strategically speaking?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think really the point is quite straightforward. Neither the President nor I can conceive of circumstances in which in any way France was threatened militarily, in which the interests of the United Kingdom would not be seen to be similarly threatened. And equally the President can conceive of no circumstances in which the United Kingdom was threatened militarily that would not equally threaten the vital interests of France. And we thought it appropriate to make that point crystal clear on this occasion to exemplify the increasingly close cooperation we have in all aspects of defence.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, 50 years ago, referring to somewhat complicated relationships with General de Gaulle, Winston Churchill said: “Of all the crosses I have to bear, the cross of Lorraine is the heaviest”. I would like to ask the successor of General de Gaulle, whether this is a heavy cross to bear on your shoulders? I am referring to the increasingly Euro-sceptical policy of Her Majesty’s Government or if that policy is a relief and a comfort for you?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I must say I don’t know what Euro-scepticism is – is it a fad. And in every country of the European Union, not only the United Kingdom, there is such a phenomenon. So let us be realistic about this and if one is realistic, what does one see? What one sees is that there is considerable progress in European construction. There are areas in which France and the United Kingdom have a somewhat different approach. We discuss these differences and I say we discuss these differences quite equably and openly, it is certainly not a heavy cross to bear. And there are other areas in which our views are perfectly convergent, and the Prime Minister has told you what they are, everything which concerns the construction of a Europe which is closer to its citizens, on enlargement, on other issues. On these issues we have no conflict of views whatsoever. So let us not be ideological, we are pragmatic people. We are moving ahead at our own pace but very positively and without there being any misunderstanding between us.

    QUESTION:

    To come back to terrorism I have three somewhat distinct questions. First of all, the French government has stated that it is concerned about the fact that some Islamic fundamentalists may have taken refuge in the United Kingdom. Secondly, there is information to the effect that the SIS might open an office in London, the BBC announced this this afternoon. And thirdly, Abad Anas [phon], one of the founder members of SIS, is supposed to be in the UK and has made a request for political asylum. Can you comment?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    On the first question, my answer is no. There is no difference of view between us on that. On the other questions I have no comment to make. But I would refer you back to what was said earlier on which is that I consider that cooperation between France and the United Kingdom in the fight against terrorism is absolutely first class, it is efficient and I warmly welcome it.

    QUESTION:

    Could you tell us about what concrete steps have been taken to strengthen cooperation between the French and British governments in the fight against terrorism?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    When it comes to the fight against terrorism, it is not customary to announce publicly exactly what one is going to do, and I am sure you will understand that.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will just add one point to that. Although the President is entirely right in saying that we do not announce publicly what the cooperation is, let me just say two things to you. Firstly, the cooperation is already close; and secondly, the President and I agreed this morning on ways to make it closer yet. Terrorism is a scourge to all countries and we will work very closely in dealing with it, but I am afraid that we are not going to tell people precisely what we shall be doing.

    QUESTION:

    Did you talk about who might be the next Secretary General of NATO, whether it is clear that there will be a British candidate, and if there is not then can you both tell me what you think of the candidature of Ruud Lubbers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me respond to that first. We did consider the possibility not of one, I saw one British name being floated in the press, there were in fact a number of British names that we considered. But we also looked at other names that were already in the field. Dr Lubbers is not yet a formal candidate, I should make that entirely clear. But were Dr Lubbers to be a formal candidate for the Secretary General of NATO, I think he would receive strong support from the British government.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    And you will hardly be surprised to hear me say that there again we share the same view.

    QUESTION (John Craig, Daily Express):

    Prime Minister, do you agree that Euro-scepticism is a fad?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are many ways to describe Euro-realism, Euro-scepticism, Euro-philyism, Euro-phobism, there are all sorts of names. I think what is important is that one looks at the problems related to Europe with a clear and open mind and decides what is the answer most appropriate to the British interest and the European interest, and that is the way the government examines them.

    QUESTION (Tom Carver, BBC TV):

    Can both Presidents tell us what this new rapprochement that seems to exist is going to do for the much vaunted Franco-German axis that we have?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am grateful to be promoted to President but I fear it is not a title I can accept. I will leave the President to answer that.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    The Franco-German friendship, let me put it that way, is part and parcel of our destiny for reasons of history and geography that I don’t need to elaborate on here. But also because we are two countries at the very heart of Europe it was always clear that Europe would never get anywhere unless there was a clear understanding between France and Germany. If there is no understanding between France and Germany, there will be no Europe, full-stop. But Europe is not only France and Germany, Europe is also a number of other countries and a leading country of course is the United Kingdom with its traditions, with its history. And the United Kingdom cannot be on the sidelines. Therefore the cooperation between France and Germany, the understanding between France and Germany is absolutely essential but it is not enough, there has to be something else and that something else is the British presence. Clearly that is a reflection of British interests. And I think France is in a position to facilitate that necessary synergies between the British view of things and say the German view of things. One always tends to imagine that there are very considerable differences of view, but when one gets down to them and when one looks at them very closely one realises there is no difference which cannot be reduced. And I believe that Franco-British cooperation, which is going from strength to strength every year and is gaining in strength at each one of our meetings, is one of the important points for a vision of a sound stable Europe developing strongly into the future.

    QUESTION:

    Did you discuss the Quebec referendum and what is the position of Paris and London?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    The referendum is going on this very day and you will hardly expect me, nor the British Prime Minister, to make any comment on that.

    QUESTION (Magreb Press):

    Why has it taken so long for the former dominant powers in Africa to launch the present initiative, that is conflict resolution and peacekeeping, and what prompted the move?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I suppose one could always have done a good thing earlier. I think the fact that the President and I have discussed this on more than one occasion. We both in our own backgrounds have a direct interest in parts of Africa, it was a matter that naturally arose in our conversations some time ago and that we have subsequently taken forward. It clearly is important. If you look at what has happened in Africa over the last few years there are some people who will say, well it is very depressing to look at the problems in Africa. I think that is at best a half truth, and at worst a complete untruth. Because many of the changes that have taken place in Africa have been very beneficial. Many of the African governments are struggling very hard to turn away from bad economic policies to sound economic policies. Many of the African countries that were not democracies are moving towards being democracies. Of course there are some areas where things are not yet right, but a great deal of progress has been made and both the President and I would like to lend a helping hand, where we can, to that process.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    And I would just add one further point to that. There was reference earlier on to Euro-sceptics, now we are talking about Afro-pessimists. But I am neither one nor the other. And as far as Africa is concerned, I think that Africa is moving ahead in the right direction. And I fear that a lot of Afro-pessimists are in fact people who are trying to withdraw from Africa and trying to shuffle off the efforts which are necessary for the development of Africa. But I am optimistic for three reasons: firstly, Africa is moving ahead in the right direction; the rule of law is gaining ground; the management of public affairs in Africa is improving every year and that is I think clear when one looks at the increasing number of agreements which are entered into with the international financial institutions; thirdly, today African nations have understood that there are two things they must do – first of all they have to take into account regional interests and they also have to be involved in conflict resolution in order to avoid conflicts as far as that is possible. And those three developments I think are liable to give greater confidence to African peoples but also to Europeans who wish to participate in the development of Africa and that is why I am an Afro-optimist.

    QUESTION:

    You talked about advances in European construction thanks to excellent Franco-British cooperation, particularly on defence matters. But when you discuss matters like the EMS, the single currency, the IGC, is that not likely to hold back European construction, is that not pragmatism too?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I mentioned some of the areas in terms of what is loosely called European construction. I am always wary when people talk of European construction, it means different things to different people.

    As far as the Intergovernmental Conference is concerned, I set out a series of areas where it is clear already, before the Intergovernmental Conference begins, that there is a broadly common interest between the British position and the French position. There will not be unanimity on every issue between Britain and France, or indeed I suspect between almost any two countries in the European Union, total unanimity is a very rare proposition. But there is a good deal of unanimity and we will try and build on that in the Intergovernmental Conference. There will be some things that will be unacceptable to some nations and that is a matter that will need to be determined in the conference when it begins next year.

    As far as Monetary Union is concerned, the British position on that is well known, our position has not changed. I set it out pretty clearly in the Maastricht negotiations when I obtained for the British the right to opt-out of a Single European currency if that is formed and if it is not thought to be in the British interests to join. That was the position and that remains the position.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Just one comment as far as France is concerned. Let me first of all point out, if I may, that each time a debate of this kind gets going we are told that things are going very badly. But I think it is quite beyond challenge that Europe is progressing. Some people find that Europe is not moving ahead as quickly as possible, some people say not as well as possible, but basically it is moving ahead. Soon after I became President, France was the President of the European Council and I hosted a meeting in Cannes of 15 Heads of State and Government, plus 11 Heads of State and Government of countries which may one day become members of the European Union, and I have no recollection of there ever being a venture of this kind in history. Nobody thinks today that there could be such a thing as a war in Europe, if one excludes the unfortunate affair of ex-Yugoslavia. So I think that is real progress.

    Once you have got that far, you have of course other issues to deal with – the Intergovernmental Conference, the need to adjust the European institutions to an increasing number of member countries. That is necessary. Well we shall be tackling that issue and we shall be thinking pragmatically once again about the ways in which we can succeed in that reform. And on several points France, the United Kingdom, Germany, see eye to eye, on other points there are differences. Fine. But that is what diplomats are there for and that is precisely why we agree on a certain period of time necessary to come to an agreement. But I don’t doubt that eventually we shall come to an agreement on the best institutions which are best suited to the principles of each country and I hope that Europe will be enlarged, that it will be closer to its citizens thanks to the application of the principle of subsidiarity on which both British and French and Germans fully agree.

    Then you raised the issue of the currency, a big debate on the currency. You are familiar with the position I took during the French debate on Maastricht, I came out in favour of [indistinct] today I have made it very clear that whatever efforts need to be made and of course those efforts have to be properly distributed in France, but France will meet the conditions which will enable it to become a member of the single currency on 1 January 1999 – that is the French option. And I don’t think anybody can challenge today that France has the political will to do that because it is in our interests and we believe it is in our interests because it requires us to reduce our budget deficit and it is only by reducing our budget deficits that we shall be able to rise to the challenge of unemployment, and that is my objective, to fight against unemployment. Clearly fighting against unemployment means sound management and sound exchanges. France being what it is, I believe the single currency is a positive thing for France, it is something which will enable France to fight effectively against unemployment and to maintain social cohesion, which is something also which I have stated a great deal. And I would also say that it is a great French tradition, the single currency basically is an assertion of the stability of exchange rates, that is the objective of the single currency. And France’s objective, France’s view of things, has always been in favour of the stability of exchange rates. That was one of the major hobby-horses of General de Gaulle, whom you referred to earlier on, and it remains France’s unwavering position on monetary issues.

    The British Prime Minister has just recalled his position, which we are amply familiar. The United Kingdom, which does not have the same characteristics, the same constraints as France does, does not wish to have its hands tied. It wishes to keep full freedom to take that decision if and when it feels it is in its interests to do so. And I would observe that the UK will fulfil the criteria for monetary union if it wishes to embark upon it because its economic management is sound and reasonable. So the UK will have its hands entirely free to take the decision it feels fit to take and it will take that choice when it feels appropriate to do so. I am sure we will discuss it beforehand and I am sure the British government will discuss it with its British partners. We must respect the freedom of choice of the British government in this respect.

    QUESTION:

    Could you clarify something the Prime Minister said about global partnership. Does that mean that it is easier to have common foreign policy between countries which have a worldwide presence than within the 15 countries of the European Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, that was not what it was intended to convey. Though a common foreign policy, agreed by unanimity and not imposed by qualified majority vote, is a very attractive proposition for Europe.

    Clearly collectively if the whole of Europe agrees to a foreign policy then we are in a stronger position than if any one or two countries themselves agreed. But the remark I made about global partnership was not particularly geared to one aspect of policy like foreign policy, but geared to the range of interests that I set out, and the President set out, that are common both to France and the United Kingdom. We are the only two European nations that are nuclear powers, that have a worldwide interest, that sit on the United Nations Security Council, that have long-standing historical interests in large parts of the world like Africa and it is upon that basis that we have a common outlook on many problems. And it was that common outlook, based on common background, common history and common interests, that led the President and I to conclude that there was ample scope for a global partnership. And as we have indicated in defence and other areas, there are large areas that illustrate in very practical terms the extent of partnership that already exists today between Britain and France and we have both reiterated our determination to sustain those areas of agreement and to build on them wherever and whenever we think it appropriate.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Lancaster House – 21 July 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech held at Lancaster House in London, on the International Meeting on Bosnia, held on Friday 21st July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me first welcome you and thank you all for coming.

    I called this conference a week ago because I did not believe that the international effort in Bosnia could continue as it has done in recent months.

    Over the past fortnight, we’ve seen the capture of Srebrenica and, it appears, Zepa enclaves by Bosnian Serb forces. Those forces attacked lightly-armed peacekeepers, flouted UN decisions, and abused human rights. Their behaviour towards the local population was barbaric. New reports of atrocities are coming in daily. As a result, international aid agencies are having to cope with a new flood of homeless and frightened refugees.

    The recent cycle of attack and counter-attack has threatened our ability to continue peacekeeping and humanitarian work. There is a clear risk that Gorazde and Sarajevo will be the next targets of Serb aggression.

    Nor is the crisis confined to the Eastern enclaves. In many parts of Bosnia today, UN troops are unable to carry out their tasks. They have been fired at and threatened by all sides, taken hostage, and blockaded in their compounds. Bangladeshi troops in Bihac, for example, have seen some of the worst fighting rage around them.

    UNPROFOR’s mission is being whittled away progressively by the hostility of the parties.

    I believe we’ve reached a turning point for the United Nations’ mission. I invited you here because I believe new, collective decisions are needed urgently. We cannot afford different noises from different capitals.

    What is at stake goes wider than Bosnia. We face a fundamental challenge to our ability to work together effectively to cope with chaos and disorder.

    Objectives

    It is vital today to come to a united view on the way ahead, and set clear guidelines for future decisions.

    By deciding to meet, we have provided a focus for fresh thinking. That needs to be translated into joint action.

    I see four specific objectives for our meeting:

    – first, I believe UNPROFOR should remain in Bosnia, so long as it can carry out a useful task without unacceptable risks. But we must establish the conditions under which UNPROFOR can stay. We cannot go on as we are;

    – second, we must agree a way of deterring further brutal aggression, and in particular the imminent threat to Gorazde.

    – third, we must think afresh about diplomatic efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement. We need urgency here. We must give more support to the, negotiators;

    – fourth, we should review the work of the humanitarian organisations, and address their problems.

    UNPROFOR and Aid Agencies

    Let me turn now to UNPROFOR. Its role has been widely misunderstood and misrepresented.

    The United Nations did not send UNPROFOR to Bosnia to enforce peace or fight a war. Its purpose has been to help the humanitarian efforts, and to keep peace where peace has been established – as it has been in much of Central Bosnia.

    In 1992, before UNPROFOR was deployed, up to 400 people died in an average day in Bosnia.

    By last year, that figure had fallen to 7.

    UNPROFOR and the aid agencies have brought help to millions: food for the starving, shelter for the homeless, care for the sick.

    They have rebuilt schools, cleared mines, opened up roads.

    These achievements will be jeopardised or lost if UNPROFOR is forced to withdraw.

    But UNPROFOR cannot stay if its personnel are to be attacked, captured, threatened and humiliated. It cannot stay simply to be abused as a shelter behind which the armies attack each other. It cannot stay if its movements are impeded. It cannot operate if the parties do not provide the necessary level of consent and cooperation.

    So, if we wanted to stay, as I do, we must seek to agree realistic objectives. Then we must provide the means to achieve them. In the past, where UNPROFOR has failed, it has often been because it was given inadequate means or set unattainable tasks.

    Deterring aggression and achieving diplomatic progress

    Today we must spell out in unmistakable terms the consequences of further attacks – against UNPROFOR and against areas designated by the United Nations.

    And we must mean what we say and be determined to carry it out.

    In particular, we must face up to the threats to Gorazde and to supply routes.

    Bosnian Serb leaders have threatened Gorazde directly. I believe we should decide today that they would pay a very high price if they tried to carry out those threats. Our response to an attack on Gorazde should be very severe. United Nations Resolutions already provide for action. Air power is available. We need to decide how it could best be used to support our objectives.

    Likewise, we must consider how the United Nations Protection Force can defend itself more robustly on the ground, for example in protecting supply lines.

    There are some 25,000 troops from 18 nations now under UN command in Bosnia. The United Kingdom, France and other countries have reacted to the crisis of the past few weeks by sending a large number of additional troops. We should discuss today with the Secretary General and his commanders how these extra and robust assets should be used to best effect.

    Let me finally turn to the diplomatic track. It is an essential part of our strategy.

    More than three years of war have shown that the Bosnian problem will not be settled by military means.

    If the war now escalates, it will still not bring a settlement. It will only bring deeper suffering and greater danger to the region.

    The progress made when the Bosniac/Croat Federation was established has been followed by immense frustration. Sustained effort by the Contact Group, by David Owen, Carl Bildt and Thorvaldt Stoltenberg, has brought little reward. The peace process is in danger of collapsing under the weight of military pressure.

    We must use this crisis to regenerate diplomacy. Together we must provide more help to the UN and EU negotiators. I hope they will soon be able to secure the recognition of Bosnia by Belgrade.

    This would be an important but we need to go further. We must think how best to confront the parties with the alternatives to war, and with the consequences of ignoring a negotiated settlement.

    Conclusion

    As I said earlier, Bosnia is at a turning point.

    It is closer than ever before to all-out, unrestrained war.

    If we cannot deter aggression, if we cannot secure the consent of the parties and their willingness to negotiate rather than to fight, the prospects for UNPROFOR’s continuation will be bleak.

    If UNPROFOR were forced out of Bosnia – and that is possible – it would not end our involvement.

    It would change it – but not end it. We all know that.

    Our present involvement – saving lives and seeking a political settlement – remains the best way forward.

    Today I hope we can give that a new impetus.

  • PMQT – 18 July 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

    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. Hill: Does the Prime Minister share– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I must hear the question. Hon. Members must stop shouting.

    Mr. Hill: Does the Prime Minister share the public’s concern about hon. Members who peddle political influence for private gain? If so, why is he rejecting Lord Nolan’s plan that earnings from such activities should be declared? Where does he stand on the matter? Why, for once, does not he give a lead?

    The Prime Minister: When the hon. Gentleman began, I thought that he was going to comment on the rail strike. The fact that he is sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers might explain why he did not. The House will have an opportunity to discuss the matter that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and I look forward to that.

     

    Q2. Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Sumberg: Now that we have seen the quite ridiculous spectacle of the Labour leader travelling around Australia passing himself off as Margaret Thatcher, is it not time that my right hon. Friend reminded the House that while he was actively working in support of Margaret Thatcher’s policies of low taxation, a strong national defence and moderate trade unionism, that very same Labour leader was actively and consistently opposing every single one of those policies?

    The Prime Minister: It seems to be the case that the Labour party in opposition today supports the policies that it opposed so vigorously in the 1980s. I have no doubt that the Labour party in opposition in the future will support the policies that it so vigorously opposes today.

    Mr. Blair rose — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order.

    Mr. Blair: I would have slightly more respect for Conservative Members who say how shameful it is to have dealings with the Murdoch press if they had said that at the time of the 1992 general election.

    I have given the Prime Minister notice of this question on Bosnia. After the appalling events in Srebrenica and Zepa, does the Prime Minister agree, first, that rather than talk of withdrawal, having designated safe areas and encouraged people to enter them, it is our duty to pursue all practical means to uphold the United Nations mandate and prevent further ethnic cleansing; secondly, that we should use UNPROFOR to open up the supply road to Sarajevo; thirdly, that we must impress on our American colleagues the absolute necessity of practical support for our actions rather than just rhetoric; and, finally, that, as threat after threat has been made to the Bosnian Serbs but not carried out, over the next few days we must work out our bottom line and this time stick to it, otherwise the consequences for the United Nations and for the resolution of conflicts everywhere will be lasting and disastrous?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman and I spoke at length about Bosnia earlier this morning and I am grateful to him for saying at that time that he would raise the general question this afternoon.

    Let me say to the House on the back of the right hon. Gentleman’s question that there are, in reality, only three options for the future in Bosnia. The first is to see events escalate from the present circumstances into full-scale war, which would need a huge NATO force, including American ground troops, if that were remotely practical. The second option is to try to continue the United Nations humanitarian and peacekeeping work. That is becoming more dangerous and hazardous as day succeeds day, and carrying on that work does not guarantee prevention of the sort of attacks that we have seen at Srebrenica and are seeing at Zepa at the moment. Against that, however, the activities of the United Nations are still saving a great number of lives and the activities of British troops in central Bosnia in particular have brought peace to an area where we saw bloodshed and carnage on a massive scale only two years ago. The third option is to withdraw UNPROFOR and then lift the arms embargo. It is possible that events will head in that direction but I believe that, if that were to happen, it would be a course that we would regret, and that the Bosnians would come to regret as well.

    There are no magic answers. What is clear–we need to be entirely clear about it–is that it is not practical to mix war fighting with peacekeeping. Of those difficult options, I am sure that the right way is to go on trying to keep the peace, trying to provide help and trying to promote negotiations, until or unless that becomes impossible.

    It is to deal with matters such as the specific points that the right hon. Gentleman raised that we have taken the lead this week in international efforts, including the meeting of chiefs of defence staff on Sunday, the visit of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary to Bosnia, the visit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to Washington, and the conference that we have called for Friday this week to try to deal specifically with questions such as those raised by the right hon. Gentleman and to determine a viable way forward for the protection forces and the diplomatic process. I hope that such a way can be found because, if it cannot, the alternatives for Bosnia and the whole region are potentially catastrophic.

    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, thanks to the Government, the police and the courts, crime has been falling throughout the country for the past two years? In Staffordshire, crime has fallen by 14.5 per cent. and in the City of London it has halved. Does that not show that we are the party of law and order? As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) would say, by opposing every toughening measure that we have introduced, that lot over there are nothing but wind and soundbites.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I agree with his analysis and the accuracy of pointing out that the crime statistics are indeed falling and have been falling for some time. Neither the Government nor the police are complacent about the task that lies ahead and I commend a number of police constabularies for the innovative moves that they have made–Operation Bumblebee is but one example–to target particular types of crime. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary believes that it is important to continue in that fashion. We intend to do so, and to continue to give top priority to the battle against crime.

    Mr. Beith: If there is not to be a total and irreversible humiliation of the United Nations and all that it stands for in this desperate situation, do not clear and achievable objectives have to be identified and followed through? Would not one of those objectives be the maintenance and defence of a clear humanitarian route over Mount Igman to Sarajevo to relieve and supply that city?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may be right about that. It is one of the matters that is being examined at the moment with the commanders on the ground. A route over Mount Igman would be suitable in the summer but perhaps less suitable in the winter. What is necessary for Sarajevo is an access and egress route in both summer and winter, but I do not deny the importance of having proper access and egress over Mount Igman.

    The right hon. Gentleman and others should appreciate that it is necessary to look at the wider question as well as individual snippets of policy, such as the proposed route, in order to get a proper view of what is practicable and what it is possible to ask the forces to do and to maintain. I repeat that one cannot mix war fighting with peacekeeping. It is important for the safety of our troops and protection forces for that to be recognised. There is an element of action that can be taken, but we must leave it to the commanders on the ground to determine precisely where that line is drawn, unless the western democracies are prepared to cross that line entirely towards a war-fighting role. I see no indication that those powers are prepared to do that.

    Sir Malcolm Thornton: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic orchestra and its management on the completion of a highly successful summer pops concert programme that has given pleasure and enjoyment to 25,000 people? Will my right hon. Friend also reflect on the fact that it was held in the Merseyside development corporation area, which represents a continuing commitment to the Government’s wish to regenerate the inner-city areas?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to congratulate everyone concerned on what was clearly an attractive and worthwhile event. My hon. Friend is right to point out the proposals that we have carried out for some years to regenerate the inner-city areas. There is a good deal more to come, and I believe that people up and down the country will welcome it.

     

    Q3. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Winnick: Do the Prime Minister and the leaders of other western democracies understand how deeply betrayed the people of Bosnia feel? They live, or did live, in so-called safe areas, but they have been given no protection in the face of Serbian aggression. If it was right, as I believe that it was, for the House to pass legislation about alleged Nazi war criminals living in Britain, what are we and the international community going to do about those war criminals in Bosnia today who are ethnic cleansing, mass murdering, raping and committing other such war crimes? Will any action be taken to bring those war criminals to justice?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that because it has been given in the House on a number of occasions–he knows that the answer is yes. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels deeply about this matter, but he should not underestimate the work done by the aid agencies and United Nations troops, who have aided those agencies to carry out work that otherwise would have been impossible to complete. Many people are alive today who would not have been but for that action, which was largely led by this country and British troops.

    Mr. Churchill: I fully appreciate the difficulties confronting my right hon. Friend in the decisions that he must take with his fellow national leaders over Bosnia. Is he aware, however, that the honour of Britain is engaged in the defence of the safe haven of Gorazde, which the Government established, and which is guarded by 200 Royal Welch Fusiliers? Is it not now incumbent on us to ensure the safety of those tens of thousands of the civilian population who have flocked there? Will he make sure that we and our allies, together with the United States, do all in our power to ensure that Gorazde does not fall?

    The Prime Minister: I am conscious of that, but my hon. Friend would be the first to realise that it would not be appropriate for me to expand on that matter.

     

    Q4. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 July.

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

    Mr. Illsley: Does the Prime Minister realise that the recommendations of the Greenbury committee will do nothing to curb the obscene pay rises that have been awarded to the directors and chief executives of privatised utilities? Does he further realise that the announcement yesterday about taxation will affect the half a million ordinary employees who have share options? Is it not time that the Prime Minister took action to curb excessive pay awards in major companies rather than increasing the tax burden on ordinary employees?

    The Prime Minister: I know that it is coming to the end of term, but that is pretty rich from the hon. Gentleman. The Labour party has been calling for share options to be taxed as income for some time. Just as some Members now appear to be calling for a 50 per cent. tax rate on earnings, here is the hon. Gentleman talking about reducing taxes. There seems to be a lack of conjunction between the Front Bench and the Back Bench.

    As far as other matters are concerned, I believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said yesterday, some way away,

    “There is, believe it or not, still prejudice against success”.

    Well, there sits the prejudice–right along the Labour Benches.

  • PMQT – 13 July 1995

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th July 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

    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.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I urge, yet again, the withdrawal of British troops from Bosnia–particularly because Bismarck’s wise advice, quoted yesterday by our right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), was ignored by his successors, so that eventually the road to Sarajevo was paved with the bones of Pomeranian grenadiers? We do not want that road to be paved with the bones of our young men.

    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has held a consistent view about the difficulties that we face in Bosnia, and that some others share that view. There can be no certainty about what will happen in the present circumstances, but I hope that I can tell my hon. Friend why I believe that it would be unwise for us to decide to take that action now.

    I believe that, if UNPROFOR withdrew, a number of things would be at risk. We would certainly put at risk the peace that remains in central Bosnia, not least because of the presence of British troops; and we might put at risk the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been saved as a result of the presence of United Nations troops. Let me touch on the wider point on which my hon. Friend also touched. One of the primary reasons why I felt it right to send British troops to the area in the first place, and why I would be reluctant to remove them unless it became imperative to do so, is the danger of a wider Balkan war. That risk exists, and it is for that reason that I felt it right to ask British troops to go to the area in a peacekeeping capacity and try to ensure that such a war did not occur.

    I concede to my hon. Friend that the situation is serious. As I have told the House before, circumstances could arise in which it would be impossible for United Nations troops to remain; but until and unless those circumstances arise, I believe that it is right for them to do so, and to contribute to peacekeeping in the way in which they have so far.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that his leadership election pledge to abolish inheritance tax and capital gains tax would amount to £3 billion a year, and that almost half that £3 billion would go to just 5,000 people?

    The Prime Minister: I understand that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has been dancing around with all sorts of fraudulent and distorted quotations. I will make it quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman–as I have done, both publicly and privately, for some time–that when it is appropriate and we can afford to do so– [Interruption.] That is what I said. When it is appropriate and we can afford to do so, I wish to abolish both capital gains tax and inheritance tax. I repeat the point for the right hon. Gentleman: I have made that clear and it must wait for when resources allow. I make no apology for that. The distortion of capital gains tax will need to be tackled. Unlike the Labour party, I believe in trying to pass wealth down between generations, whereas it squirms and wriggles whenever we talk of any tax reduction.

    Mr. Blair: I might remind the right hon. Gentleman that, during the leadership election, he said that he wanted to do that at the earliest opportunity. I do not know whether No. 11 Downing street or No. 10a has now changed the line, but, in any event, would it not be the most mistaken sense of priority to cut inheritance tax or capital gains tax when we know today that, as a result of Government cuts in spending, we are short of teachers and that classroom sizes are rising? Should not the interests of the many in a decent education for their children come before the Tory obsession with the interests of a privileged few?

    The Prime Minister: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that home owners right across the country, increasingly hit by inheritance tax, are a privileged few. They will be interested to hear that they are a privileged few. It is true that they were a privileged few when the Labour Government were in power and many former council home owners, now home owners, would have remained without that privilege had we been left with a Labour Government. The reality is that the people of this country would like to see changes in those taxes and, when it is prudent to do so, we will change them.

    Mr. Blair: As a matter of fact, the vast majority of people do not pay inheritance tax or capital gains tax and the right hon. Gentleman did not dispute that more than half the benefit would go to 5,000 people. As for tax, let me remind him that he pledged to cut tax at the last election, that he increased the standard rate of income tax by 7p and that only one tax cut has been introduced since the 1992 election: a cut of VAT on fuel by Opposition Members.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that he and his colleagues have voted against every tax reduction that we have introduced throughout most of the past 16 years. Even at the suggestion of tax cuts, one sees the instinctive reaction of Opposition Members. They hate the thought of leaving money in people’s pockets. They would rather have it themselves to spend for themselves. I have made it clear that it is my ambition to abolish inheritance tax and capital gains tax as and when we can do it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that clear, too. It remains our ambition, and we will pursue it.

    Mr. Tracey: What message would my right hon. Friend send to the people of Wales, whose Labour Members of Parliament boycotted the House and Welsh Question Time at the beginning of this week? Would he suggest a forfeit for them, because surely their behaviour jeopardises the future representation of the Principality in the House?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that those hon. Members’ behaviour was juvenile–sufficiently juvenile, no doubt, to qualify for nursery vouchers as soon as we fully introduce the scheme. When the Labour party thinks up ill-judged stunts such as that, it would do well to remember that two of its past five or so leaders have been Englishmen sitting in Welsh seats.

     

    Q2. Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

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

    Mr. Llwyd: Following the rather dramatic departure of the Prime Minister’s very good friend, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the right hon. Gentleman has appointed someone to the Welsh Office who, nominally at least, is from the same planet as the rest of us, but in so doing he has appointed the fourth successive Member of Parliament to that office who has no interest at all in Welsh affairs. Has the Prime Minister not shown that he has no confidence in Welsh Conservative Members of Parliament and is it not really a pathetic reflection on them?

    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chose his question before listening to what might have been asked earlier. He might bear in mind the fact that we are one United Kingdom. It is perfectly proper for a previous leader of the Labour party to be a Welsh Member of Parliament seeking to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It is perfectly proper for two English Members to sit in Welsh seats, one of whom became Prime Minister and one of whom tried to do so. It is only the Welsh nationalists who wish to wrap themselves up in a little country and damage that country and its prospects within the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Charles Wardle: If the new directive to abolish internal frontiers is the Commission’s response to the action it faces in the European Court for not having dismantled the frontiers under existing treaty law, what credible defence is there for Britain in talk of a veto, or the worthless Luxembourg declaration? If my right hon. Friend means to protect our sovereign borders against unchecked immigration, will he get the treaty amended? If not, he will face the wrath of not just the Euro-sceptics in the House but virtually the entire British electorate.

    The Prime Minister: The European Commission has produced three proposals. It made it clear that the proposals must be taken together and must be agreed unanimously. Unless those proposals are agreed, there is no matter upon which the European Court can adjudicate. I can tell my hon. Friend that there must be unanimity and that that will not happen. The United Kingdom will veto the proposals.

     

    Q3. Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

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

    Mr. Battle: Following the leadership election and his new-found determination to stamp his views and authority on the Cabinet, will the Prime Minister now tell us whether he agrees with the proposals of the Nolan committee on sleaze that amounts earned from consultancies by Members of Parliament should be openly declared?

    The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear to the House on a number of occasions since the outset that I favour greater transparency. I have made it equally clear that we will wait until we have the Select Committee report before I say any more.

    Mr. Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning tomorrow’s rail strike, which will bring massive disruption to the country? Is it not revealing that, when it comes to standing up for the consumer and criticising the trade unions, new Labour remains totally silent?

    The Prime Minister: That follows neatly from the previous question. There has been absolute and total silence from the Opposition Front Bench when it comes to looking after the interests of passengers. We have not heard a word about the RMT or ASLEF or about the inconvenience to passengers. All I can say is that it is a good job that one does not go to Australia by train.

     

    Q4. Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

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

    Ms Corston: In the light of today’s report from school governors that teachers are being sacked and that class sizes are increasing, despite the Prime Minister’s repeated assurances that neither of those things would happen, will the right hon. Gentleman now apologise to the British people?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady might well acknowledge the increase in resources to education year upon year: it is 50 per cent. up on the level that we inherited some time ago. She might also acknowledge the improved examination performance, improved teaching, improved choice and the improvement in the number of our youngsters going to university. All those things have magically waved by the hon. Lady without her apparently noticing them.

    Lady Olga Maitland: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in today’s newspapers, including The Daily Telegraph, that 100 terrorists could be released from gaol early? Does he agree that that is totally untrue and that there are no plans to release terrorists early into the community until they have served their full and rightful sentences?

    The Prime Minister: The position is as it has always been and as the House knows. There is no question of an amnesty for prisoners in Northern Ireland. There are no political prisoners anywhere in the United Kingdom. We keep remission rates under review. That has been the case and it will remain the case for some time. Remission rates were introduced some time ago and, as I have said, we keep them constantly under review. I do not think that the time is yet right for a change.

    Madam Speaker: We now come to Question 5.

    Ms Church: Question 6–no, Question 5, Madam Speaker.

    Madam Speaker: Yes, Question 5.

     

    Q5. Ms Church: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July.

    The Prime Minister: Whichever question number it may be, the answer is the same.

    Ms Church: Does the Prime Minister agree that external regulation of the insurance market, as desired by both Lloyd’s and the Select Committee, would increase the global credibility of the London market? Will he amend the Lloyd’s Act 1982 to bring that about?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I necessarily accept the hon. Lady’s premise. It is clear that, because of the difficulties at Lloyd’s over the past couple of years, we need to look carefully at the methods of regulation. However, until we have examined them properly, I am not inclined to make any suggestion of a changed regime.

    Mr. Rowe: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the moment the opinion polls give even the illusion that there might conceivably be a Labour Government some time in the future, the trade unions queue up to threaten the customer and the patient with industrial action? Does not it frighten him as much as it frightens me that new Labour will be as much a pawn in the hands of the trade unions as old Labour used to be?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the pre-emptive obeisance shown by the Labour party on the minimum wage, the social contract and a range of other issues. Of course, we do not have to fight with the trade union movement if we offer it exactly what it wants, when it wants it and even before it has asked for it.