The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Bosnia

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with the Chancellor and Foreign Secretary – 10 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kenneth Clarke, and the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, held in Essen on Saturday 10th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think there is very much doubt that this has been an especially productive and rather good humoured Council, it has addressed a number of substantive issues that are of real concern to people right the way across the European Union. I daresay one or two souls might be a little disappointed that we were not able to provide a row on this occasion of any sort, but it has been extremely good humoured and I think we have made a lot of progress on a number of issues. I hope the lack of a row is not too great a disappointment for anyone.

    We have just come from a working lunch with the six leaders of the Central and East European countries. We started getting to grips at Essen over this weekend with some of the practicalities of the next enlargement, we have agreed effectively on a route map towards full accession for the East Europeans. From now on the European Council will meet the Eastern associates once a year and so will ten of the other Councils dealing with a whole range of issues, some of those will meet more than once a year, most probably twice.

    The enlargement process, a process that we have argued for in the United Kingdom for a very long time has now started, and I think that is very good news, not just for the countries that will be joining the European Union but for people right across Europe. The benefits of extension – peace, stability and prosperity – the benefits of spreading those right across the continent, is a prize very well worth having.

    We spent a while discussing Bosnia and so did the Foreign Ministers, and we agreed that our current efforts to secure a negotiated settlement need to be reinforced. We proposed, and our partners agreed with us, that we should beef up the teams monitoring the border between Serbia and Bosnia, we would like to have 200 monitors there and we are now up to round about three-quarters of that total. What we have to be sure of is that the sanctions are biting hard on the Bosnian Serbs.

    Secondly on Bosnia, let me say a word about the humanitarian and peace-keeping effort. Ground troops from a number of countries, including many European countries, not just those in the Contact Group, are continuing to risk their lives in Bosnia in order to save the lives of the people who live in Bosnia. That effort should continue for as long as possible, for as long as practical, for as long as they can actually safely undertake the job for which they were sent. And in return we expect the aid convoys to be readily let through to the people who are in need of medicines and food and whatever else may be on those convoys.

    Thirdly, we discussed the negotiating process itself. The United Nations is working, has been working for a long time, to try and secure a durable ceasefire and the Contact Group is striving to bring about a political settlement. None of us was under any illusion whatsoever about the difficulties that still lie ahead, but it would not be right to give up hope while there is a credible hope of success. If, of course, the parties make it impossible for the protection forces to do their job, or if the risks to the protection forces become intolerable, then a different circumstance would arise and we must plan together against that possibility whilst hoping it will not occur.

    We agreed on full consultation between all the countries contributing ground troops and we agreed that none of those countries would withdraw unilaterally from former Yugoslavia. If withdrawal at some stage should prove unavoidable, and of course it could, we hope not, but it could, the promise from President Clinton of United States troops to cover that withdrawal is very welcome indeed. But I should emphasise again that our view is that UNPROFOR should continue its humanitarian role for as long as it seems safe and secure for it to do so.

    Let me say a word about Northern Ireland and the events relating to it that we discussed here at this summit. We are just emerging in Northern Ireland from 25 years of terrorism, we are now entering a crucial period in the peace process, we are seeking to turn an encouraging ceasefire into a lasting peace. One of the things that can help us succeed is the support that we have had from our colleagues in the European Union. The active support has been tangible and I would like particularly to thank the President of the Commission for his personal commitment to the peace process.

    From the start, Jacques Delors recognised the significance of the Downing Street Declaration and all that has subsequently flowed from it. I believe that peace will bring a far better life to all the people in Northern Ireland, so I particularly welcome the very substantial programme agreed by our partners to provide a boost to improving living standards in Northern Ireland, 300 million Ecu, 250 million sterling over a three year period, part of it in the south but over 80 percent of it in the North of Ireland is an excellently timed signal ahead of the investment conference that we will hold in Belfast next week.

    We devoted quite a lot of time yesterday to Europe’s economy and to a particular aspect of that, and that is job creation. The Council endorsed the plan drawn up by the ECOFIN Ministers for member states. I supported the suggestion for an advisory body in European competitiveness and suggested that for it to be most effective it should include major Europe businessmen with practical experience in running multinational companies across Europe.

    What is most striking, was very striking indeed, in the discussion we had yesterday about the economic discussion, is that virtually all of the themes that we discussed, which only three or four years ago were regarded as eccentric British preoccupations – liberalisation, freeing up markets, reforming welfare systems, reducing the cost of jobs – all of those are now in the mainstream of European thinking and were central to the debate that we had. The Community now agrees, I think without any contradiction, that the problem of unemployment is not best tackled simply by protecting those at work, the aim must be to help those out of work by creating new growth and new jobs. We agreed a programme for trans-European networks and a list of projects. These big, frankly rather imaginative, infrastructure projects are natural territory for private sector initiatives and I am very pleased that out of the top 14 priority projects four of them will be in the United Kingdom, including the Channel Tunnel rail link and the West Coast mainline,

    I made clear that there were two things, above all, which I believed, which Britain believed, had undermined public support for the European Community over recent years and obscured much of the good work that it has done. Firstly, with those areas where the European Community has unnecessarily intruded into the daily lives of its citizens, that causes frustration not just in the United Kingdom, you can trace that frustration right across Europe if you go and see for yourself what is happening there and speak to the politicians and other people there. We are seeking to deal with that through subsidiarity, it was something much mocked when we first introduced the concept, it is now widely accepted and it has been given another substantive push by the German Presidency.

    The new provisions we secured in the Maastricht Treaty and the new rules we got agreed at the Edinburgh European Council, are now being put to good effect. We are at last beginning to see even more tangible results from that, that is certainly evident as far as legislation is concerned. In 1990 the Community passed 185 new laws, there were 75 last year, it is down to only 39 so far this year. Next year the European Council will review the existing Community statute book as well.

    And secondly, I raised the question of fraud across the European Union. People, in my view quite rightly, get extremely angry when they see their money, their taxes, being mis-managed, being wasted, or perhaps worst of all, being drained away in criminal fraud. Again, the Maastricht Treaty contains, and again at our insistence, new provisions empowering the Commission, the Council and the auditors to tackle this more vigorously, and also requiring member states to do so. I proposed a series of specific actions at this European Council, got support for them from colleagues, and you will see them reflected in the conclusions that no doubt you all have in front of you.

    Let me finally say a word about the atmosphere here at Essen. It was, as one would have expected, a well prepared, well run Council and our informal sessions have been perhaps among the most thoughtful and forward-looking that I could remember in the four years or so that I have been attending them. We were looking ahead last evening to the possible union of 15 years, 20 years from now, when we might have perhaps as many as 27 members of the European Union. We began to consider, not reaching conclusions, but consider in a brainstorming session what our goals for the Union might be over the next 40 years, not the inward looking centralising approach of yore, but an open, peaceful, prosperous, united Europe of nation states. It was a very productive discussion indeed. I believe that is the direction that most people in Europe would wish to go and I think it is the direction in which we are most likely to go. So I found that a very rewarding session last evening and there was a general wish that we should return to that conversation again in the future, and I very much look forward to that.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (John Palmer, The Guardian):

    Prime Minister, you have referred in the Bosnian conclusions to the urgent reinforcement of the ICFY mission, I asked this question of Kinkel earlier on and I am still not clear from what he said or what you have said, what has made the reinforcement so urgent, is President Milosevic not to your satisfaction, yet sealing this frontier, I don’t know whether you or the Foreign Secretary can throw light on the use of this word urgent.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Foreign Secretary spent some time discussing it, so I will ask him to say a word in a moment. What we are anxious to do is to avoid any leakage at all. I do not think it is a question of President Milosevic’s good intentions being in question, but we do wish to ensure that there is no leakage across the border and for that reason we would rather like to see more monitors there. But the Foreign Secretary discussed this at length, not just with Klaus Kinkel but with his other colleagues, so he might wish to add something to that.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    President Milosevic told us on Sunday that the border was in effect closed. There are some people, particularly in the United States, who question that, so there is a matter of fact which has to be established, it is very important to establish it because the present relief of sanctions for President Milosevic, the opening of the airport and the allowing of certain events, is for 100 days and its renewal depends on everybody being satisfied that he is doing his best. So it is a matter of fact which needs to be established. It is best established by having an adequate number of qualified people on the ground. We have got people, we, the Americans, the Nordics, are doing our bit there, there are other countries who have not contributed or only contributed one or two.

    What I was pressing, and what is now in the conclusions, is let us get on with this, let us establish as a matter of fact whether or not the border between Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs is adequately controlled and the movement of [indistinct] goods properly enforced.

    QUESTION (Peter McMahon, Sunday Mirror):

    Chancellor, when you were asked about Europe less than two weeks ago you dismissed talk of a referendum as not an issue. Today in his interview the Prime Minister says he is not ruling one out, so clearly it is an issue, why is there such a difference between the two of you?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    I think the Prime Minister has made our position perfectly clear, I do not think there is a difference between the two of us. These are important issues and no doubt the question will keep coming up from time to time. But the main thing is to prepare a clear position for the inter-governmental conference in 1996, although we do not yet know whether we will have a serious agenda and to have a serious debate about the merits and demerits of economic and monetary union if that should ever come about, and I think that is where we are and that is what we keep saying.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC TV):

    Could I ask the Prime Minister and perhaps the Foreign Secretary to take just a moment out from questions on the summit to comment on the death of Sir Keith Joseph?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me perhaps comment first. I was extremely sad to hear the news about Keith Joseph. I think he was probably one of the foremost Conservative thinkers since the Second World War and his contribution to Conservative thought and Conservative philosophy is perhaps unequalled in that period. He was also from my knowledge of him, though I confess I didn’t know him as well as I would have wished to have done, an extremely nice man, a very gentle man in every sense of the word. He was a very senior figure in the party when I first went into the House of Commons and I can only say that on every occasion I spoke to him as a wholly new, untried, unknown Member of Parliament I received nothing from him but courtesy and help and I found that was the way he treated everyone whomsoever they might have been. He is a very great loss.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I would add a word to that. He was, as the Prime Minister said, a very kind man and he was totally without self-importance. He didn’t mind at all what kind of headlines he got. He was passionately anxious to worry away at a subject until he got to the truth of it. He was very interested in first principles, very interested in the thinking behind a decision and you need people like that in politics and he will be badly missed.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just say Robin, the Chancellor probably knew Keith better either than Douglas or I so he may wish to comment.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    I did, Prime Minister, work with him from time to time over the years and got to know him quite well. All I would add to you very justified tributes is firstly that Keith was, as you know, really concerned about political issues. He thought about them a lot, he worried about them in fact, he was anxious to get things right and the driving motive behind his approach to politics was his concern to actually address social issues as well as economic issues which he thought were being neglected, but he personally was quite consumed in politics because of his concern for its effects to a degree unusual even in any dedicated politician.

    Secondly, I confirm entirely what the Prime Minister said about his personal behaviour outside politics. Because he was on the right, there was a slight tendency to think he might be something of a hard man; he could not have been further removed from that; he was one of the nicest men in politics of any political complexion that we had.

    I can remember many examples where he actually went out of his way to help colleagues who had fallen out of favour in one way or another; I remember one time in particular many years ago when there was a Conservative Member of Parliament who actually got sent to prison and that really put him out of baulk altogether, and the only man who approached that former Member of Parliament to make sure that something was being done for him when he was eventually released was Sir Keith Joseph who hadn’t known him very well, and he was the only Member of the House of Commons who took any interest in that man’s fate and his family. There were many other instances of that kind of personal action that he took so I regarded him as a very intelligent man, a very concerned man and personally a very nice man indeed.

    QUESTION (German Handelsblatt Newspaper):

    As far as Europol is concerned, the conclusions are setting a new deadline for ratifying the Convention until the next summit in Cannes. Are you willing to raise the latest objections and are you willing to include the combating of terrorism in the agenda of Europol?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The principal difficulty in reaching an agreement on Europol hasn’t lain with the United Kingdom of course; there has been a very substantial difference of opinion in what in the jargon has become known as the “architecture” between France and Germany; that was the principal impediment at the recent Home Affairs meetings and indeed at this summit and there was agreement that we would try and reach a conclusion upon that by the time of the Cannes summit.

    There are a number of areas below that where we still have some concerns but I have no doubt that we will be able to resolve those over the period of the next few months and it was for that reason that I fully supported the fact that we would agree now that we would reach a conclusion by the Cannes summit and I am sure we will be able to do that. I am sure we will be able to get our way through that.

    QUESTION (Christopher Lockwood):

    We have heard calls for a serious debate on the substantive issues behind economic and monetary union and I wonder whether we might have a little of that now. Prime Minister, in a situation where the convergence criteria are met and where the pound in particular meets them not according to the Commission’s own forecast and the Treasury’s – that is not something that is completely out of the question by 1997, certainly not by 1999 – do you think that in that situation it would be of benefit for sterling to be part of the EMU?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you have to look at what the position is going to be right the way across the European Union and I have no intention of making that judgement at this stage now. I can certainly agree with you that in terms of the Maastricht criteria it is possible, perhaps probable, that the United Kingdom will be one of the first countries actually to put themselves in an economic position where if they wish they would be economically able to move to a single currency. I think that is becoming increasingly apparent and the Chancellor may wish to add to that but how widespread that would be across the European Union I think is a matter for conjecture at this stage. We can only see, I think, three nations at the moment who look remotely likely to achieve that. Some of the strongest advocates of a single currency don’t look remotely as though they are going to be in a position economically to enter into one for a very long period indeed, but I don’t wish to judge what the debate will be at a late stage.

    I think it is right for us to examine what the implications would be, it would be folly not to be prepared for that. I don’t know at some stage in the future whether a number of nations will decide to go ahead with a single currency. There are those who say rule it out definitely for all time now. I understand their philosophical opposition but nobody at this moment can be certain what the position will be if a number of states decide to go ahead at some stage in the future and what its economic impact might be on the United Kingdom if they did. We have to consider that and study that and that is what we will need to do.

    QUESTION (Christopher Lockwood):

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It isn’t remotely likely to be half in 1997, Christopher, there are not likely to be any in 1997. There might conceivably be a few countries ready to go in 1999, it is a moot question whether there will be enough, but certainly I know of no single judge who believes there is remotely likely to be any form of economic and monetary union in 1997 and if there is anyone who thinks that, I promise you I don’t agree with them.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    Jacques Delors produced for us in our discussions a table showing the likely progress of members towards the Maastricht convergence criteria in 1996. At the moment, Luxembourg is the only one that complies. The only two that the Commission forecast to be within the criteria by 1996 are Germany and the United Kingdom, in fact the United Kingdom rather more so than Germany and that is because we are the two strongest recovering economies in Europe, in fact we are recovering at the moment rather better than the Germans and we are therefore returning to a healthier position very quickly and we are performing in accordance with those convergence criteria because the criteria in themselves, which the Prime Minister of course helped negotiate at Maastricht, comply perfectly with sound Conservative Party economics and they are based on the general direction in which our economic policy is already going in the United Kingdom.

    I agree with the Prime Minister; whatever the Maastricht time-table may say, I don’t believe a majority of the member states is likely to be able to get that time-table in the way they have set that. What we have negotiated is a position whereby whenever the others might contemplate, any number of them, economic and monetary union, we the British have a choice, our own choice, a choice for our own Parliament. We will decide yes or no according to our judgement of whether it is in the British interest to be involved in any development of economic and monetary union or not.

    The things you have to ask if and when that ever arises are is the way it is being planned and worked out likely to be good enough? Is it going to work? We have the experience of the snake, we have the experience of the ERM. I wouldn’t want us to go into any form of economic and monetary union that was not going to work and was going to come to an unfortunate end again. Then you have to ask would it or would it not improve the operating of the market and the trade between those countries that went into economic and monetary union by removing barriers and obstacles to trade between them? Would it or would it not reduce the risks of competitive devaluation ever breaking out amongst the countries involved? But I don’t think the whole thing is feasible until we have got convergence on the grounds outlined in the Maastricht Treaty and I think it would be folly for any members of the European Union to go in for economic and monetary union until they have converged on low inflation, low public deficits, low debt-to-GDP ratios and a good competitive situation in their industrial markets. As it happens Britain is the one that is best advanced towards getting back to that position and Britain is the one that has most completely reserved its own position to say yes or no to economic and monetary union if anybody raises it.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have 15 members of the European Union now, we are likely to have 20 or so some time after the turn of the century in the early years of the next century. Another decade after that we may have 27 members of the European Union. Plainly it is a fatuous proposition to assume that in any time-scale like that you are going to have a single currency across 27. I think it is improbable to the point of being dismissed that you could have a European Union across 15. The serious point at issue I believe it whether a smaller number of nations would be prepared to move forward and then they would have to consider – if they found they were economically able to do meeting the criteria the Chancellor set out – what the impact on the rest of the European Union would be if they did so and what is apparent is that although there has been a lot of consideration and a lot of discussion about the politics of that over the past five or six years, there hasn’t been in my view remotely enough consideration of the economics of that and that is the first primary issue that needs to be considered.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Essen – 10 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Essen, held on Saturday 10th December 1994.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, how has the summit gone for Britain and has there been any progress on Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the summit is proving extremely successful and I think that will be apparent in the conclusions on fraud, the conclusions on Northern Ireland and the whole tenor of the debate that we have had about economic matters. The whole agenda is much more attractive to the British point of view that it has been in previous years, so I am very pleased about that.

    QUESTION:

    Was any progress made on Bosnia last night?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Bosnia situation is as it was. We have made the position clear for some time and there is no dispute about that amongst colleagues here. We very much wish the United Nations protection forces to stay there and to continue their humanitarian work, but there is a general recognition that it might become impossible for them to do so, if it does become impossible they will have to leave. I hope very much that that will not be the case, we would like them to stay, we would like to see progress on the diplomatic front, we would like to see an end to the fighting, an end to the killing and a proper settlement and I think that is a view universally held at this summit.

    QUESTION:

    Has the success of the fraud initiative allowed you to put troubles at home behind you now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope so. The fraud initiative certainly has been successful, as I think you will see when you read the conclusions later.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the CSCE Summit – 7 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Commons statement on the CSCE Summit from 7th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) I represented the United Kingdom at the summit meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in Budapest on 5 to 6 December, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    The meeting adopted the Budapest summit declaration; and separate declarations on the 50th Anniversary of the termination of world war II, and on Baltic issues. It also adopted 10 decisions on different aspects of the CSCE’s work.

    These decisions embraced strengthening the CSCE; regional issues; further development of the capabilities of the CSCE in conflict prevention and crisis management; code of conduct on politico-military aspects of security; further tasks of the CSCE forum for security co-operation; principles governing non-proliferation; a common and comprehensive security model for Europe for the 21st century; the human dimension; the economic dimension; and the Mediterranean.

    Copies of all of these documents will be placed in the Library of the House.

    The CSCE is no longer just a conference. Its role has widened since the end of the Cold War. Under the Budapest decision on “Strengthening the CSCE”, its title will change from 1 January 1995 to “The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, CSCE”. This change of title has been accompanied by some structural changes which are set out in the relevant decision.

    Among its other decisions, the summit:

    –initiated planning for a CSCE-led peace-keeping operation in Nagorno- Karabakh. Deployment of a multi-national CSCE peace-keeping force will depend on progress towards a political settlement, on United Nations Security Council backing, and on the requisite military preparation;

    –adopted measures to strengthen the CSCE in its central role of conflict prevention;

    –reinforced, as a result of a British initiative, the CSCE’s arrangements for dealing with the problem of minorities and other human rights questions;

    –set out standards for the democratic control of armed forces, in a new code of conduct;

    –added to military confidence building measures, including provisions for the exchange of information on all conventional forces.

    At a separate ceremony in Budapest on 5 December, Ukraine acceded to the non-proliferation treaty. On behalf of the United Kingdom, I extended to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine the nuclear security assurances which we have given in the past to other non-nuclear weapon states. Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin extended the same assurances on behalf of the United States of America and the Russian Federation.

    In the margins of the conference, I had discussions with many of the CSCE heads of Government, including the Presidents of the Czech Republic, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine and the United States; the German Federal Chancellor; and the Prime Ministers of Hungary, Norway and Turkey.

    The future development of the North Atlantic Alliance was one of the subjects mentioned in many speeches to the conference, and also during my bilateral meetings. It was a point of particular concern to the Russian delegation. I explained to President Yeltsin that our aim, which was widely supported by our partners in NATO and the European Union, was to extend to the east the prosperity and stability which members of the European Union and NATO now enjoy. That was why both organisations were developing their links with the countries of central and eastern Europe. NATO had commissioned a study of the principles of enlargement, but had taken no decisions yet on which countries might join the organisation or when. It was very important for NATO to build up its relationship with Russia, and we therefore hoped that the Russian Government would soon sign their agreement with NATO on the “Partnership for Peace” programme. It was common ground that there should be no new dividing line across Europe. The dominant political issue at the summit was the conflict in Bosnia. CSCE decisions are adopted by consensus, and because of differences of view between certain participants, a draft declaration on Bosnia was not adopted. However, the chairman of the conference spoke for many delegations in issuing, in his personal capacity, a call on all warring parties in Bosnia, and particularly in Bihac, to end the fighting, declare a ceasefire and allow free access of humanitarian assistance throughout Bosnia. My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, will be making a statement separately to the House on Bosnia, taking account of discussions during the Budapest summit.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 December 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    EU Anti-fraud Budget

    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the size of the European Union’s anti- fraud budget.

    The Prime Minister: As I made clear following my meeting with the French Prime Minister at Chartres, I will insist that discussion of all aspects of fraud and irregularity against the Community budget is given a high priority at the Essen European Council.

     

    Security and Intelligence Services

    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the staff counsellor for the Security and Intelligence Services.

    The Prime Minister: Sir Philip Woodfield KCB CBE has served as staff counsellor for the Security and Intelligence Services since November 1987. He will retire from the post on 31 March 1995, and I express the Government’s gratitude to him for the way in which he has established this very sensitive post and fulfilled the duties of it. Sir Christopher France GCB, currently permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, will succeed him as staff counsellor from 1 April 1995.

     

    Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe

    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe summit in Budapest.

    The Prime Minister: I represented the United Kingdom at the summit meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in Budapest on 5 to 6 December, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    The meeting adopted the Budapest summit declaration; and separate declarations on the 50th Anniversary of the termination of world war II, and on Baltic issues. It also adopted 10 decisions on different aspects of the CSCE’s work.

    These decisions embraced strengthening the CSCE; regional issues; further development of the capabilities of the CSCE in conflict prevention and crisis management; code of conduct on politico-military aspects of security; further tasks of the CSCE forum for security co-operation; principles governing non-proliferation; a common and comprehensive security model for Europe for the 21st century; the human dimension; the economic dimension; and the Mediterranean.

    Copies of all of these documents will be placed in the Library of the House.

    The CSCE is no longer just a conference. Its role has widened since the end of the Cold War. Under the Budapest decision on “Strengthening the CSCE”, its title will change from 1 January 1995 to “The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, CSCE”. This change of title has been accompanied by some structural changes which are set out in the relevant decision.

    Among its other decisions, the summit:

    –initiated planning for a CSCE-led peace-keeping operation in Nagorno- Karabakh. Deployment of a multi-national CSCE peace-keeping force will depend on progress towards a political settlement, on United Nations Security Council backing, and on the requisite military preparation;

    –adopted measures to strengthen the CSCE in its central role of conflict prevention;

    –reinforced, as a result of a British initiative, the CSCE’s arrangements for dealing with the problem of minorities and other human rights questions;

    –set out standards for the democratic control of armed forces, in a new code of conduct;

    –added to military confidence building measures, including provisions for the exchange of information on all conventional forces.

    At a separate ceremony in Budapest on 5 December, Ukraine acceded to the non-proliferation treaty. On behalf of the United Kingdom, I extended to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine the nuclear security assurances which we have given in the past to other non-nuclear weapon states. Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin extended the same assurances on behalf of the United States of America and the Russian Federation.

    In the margins of the conference, I had discussions with many of the CSCE heads of Government, including the Presidents of the Czech Republic, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine and the United States; the German Federal Chancellor; and the Prime Ministers of Hungary, Norway and Turkey.

    The future development of the North Atlantic Alliance was one of the subjects mentioned in many speeches to the conference, and also during my bilateral meetings. It was a point of particular concern to the Russian delegation. I explained to President Yeltsin that our aim, which was widely supported by our partners in NATO and the European Union, was to extend to the east the prosperity and stability which members of the European Union and NATO now enjoy. That was why both organisations were developing their links with the countries of central and eastern Europe. NATO had commissioned a study of the principles of enlargement, but had taken no decisions yet on which countries might join the organisation or when. It was very important for NATO to build up its relationship with Russia, and we therefore hoped that the Russian Government would soon sign their agreement with NATO on the “Partnership for Peace” programme. It was common ground that there should be no new dividing line across Europe. The dominant political issue at the summit was the conflict in Bosnia. CSCE decisions are adopted by consensus, and because of differences of view between certain participants, a draft declaration on Bosnia was not adopted. However, the chairman of the conference spoke for many delegations in issuing, in his personal capacity, a call on all warring parties in Bosnia, and particularly in Bihac, to end the fighting, declare a ceasefire and allow free access of humanitarian assistance throughout Bosnia. My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, will be making a statement separately to the House on Bosnia, taking account of discussions during the Budapest summit.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Douglas Hurd – 6 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, held in Budapest on Tuesday 6th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like first to express my thanks to the Hungarian government for the hospitality and organisation of this conference. It is a very large conference by almost any reckoning and I think the organisation has been absolutely excellent and I am most grateful for that.

    During the whole of the summit I think it is fair to say that two issues have dominated: Bosnia, of course, as it was always likely to do; and the future enlargement of NATO. On Bosnia I set out in my speech yesterday what was at stake and frankly I have very little to add to that. The British troops in Bosnia are there to help the protection forces discharge an humanitarian mandate, they are there to save lives. In the period that they have been there I believe they have saved many thousands of lives and they are there to keep the peace where there is a peace to be kept. They are emphatically not there to fight a war or to take sides.

    But if the events deteriorate to the point where United Nations troops and the British contingent can no longer carry out their mandate without unacceptable risk, then of course they will have to leave, and that is simply to state a matter of fact.

    I very much hope that it will not come to this, it certainly does not have to come to this. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Serb, Bosnian and Croat leaders in the last 48 hours and all of them, without exception, have said they would like the protection forces to stay. Now if that is a view sincerely held, the conclusion to be drawn is self-evident. The warring parties must, without delay, cease fire, allow the free passage of United Nations troops and aid and make it possible to re-start the peace negotiations.

    On the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation there has frankly been rather a lot of excitable comment this morning about an East-West rift. I think it is worthwhile looking at precisely what our aim should be. Our aim must be to spread eastwards the prosperity and the stability that members of the European Union and NATO now enjoy, and that is precisely why both organisations are currently developing ties with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, in a number of cases with a view to eventual membership of those organisations.

    We wish obviously to move gradually and carefully towards enlargement, building on the Partnership for Peace programme. I spent some time discussing this yesterday with President Yeltsin and this followed an earlier conversation on the same subject when he visited Chequers last September. And it is perfectly apparent from that discussion that President Yeltsin’s concern is that NATO would enlarge swiftly to Russia’s Western border, possibly starting as early as next year. I said to him in our conversation that in fact NATO’s proposals were to move cautiously and without deadlines. NATO’s study into future membership is about the how and the why of enlargement, not the who and when of future membership. I made it clear to President Yeltsin that the United Kingdom wanted the outcome of the study to be discussed openly with all Partnership for Peace partners, including Russia, and there should be no surprises and there should be no secret deals about the enlargement of NATO.

    I formed the impression that President Yeltsin was entirely satisfied with that approach. He is concerned with the pace and the scale of NATO’s enlargement, he does not want to see a new dividing line drawn across Europe and neither do any of the members of NATO or the would-be members of NATO wish to see such a dividing line. It is therefore very important for NATO to continue to build up its relationship with Russia and that is why I hope that Russia will soon be able to sign its Partnership for Peace agreements with NATO.

    The talk we have heard over the past 24 – 48 hours of a relapse into the Cold War ignores I think yesterday’s very substantial achievements – the strengthening of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty through the accession of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, the entry into force of START I, and a clearing of the way towards the ratification of START II. And I think what those agreements, signed yesterday, show, is that a great prize is still very much within reach between East and West, a partnership between Russia and the West from which the sharp hostilities of the Cold War will be absent.

    I think therefore that much of the talk about difficulties between NATO and Russia has been grotesquely overdone, there are concerns and I think those concerns can readily be met.

    During the period we have been here both I and the Foreign Secretary have had the opportunity of a large number of bilateral discussions with other Foreign Ministers and Heads of Government and that also has been a very useful adjunct to the conference as a whole.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds, BBC):

    How can you explain how the situation has arisen where you are talking of withdrawing troops when the Security Council resolution clearly gives you the right to use all necessary means to carry out the humanitarian mandate?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I explained that rather clearly yesterday, I think, Paul. The troops are there for an humanitarian purpose, for so long as they can safely carry out that humanitarian purpose, they will stay. I am not anxious for the troops to leave, quite the reverse, we were one of the first countries to send troops there in large numbers and we did so because of our humanitarian concern for what is happening there. But those troops are not equipped to fight a war and they are not there to fight a war and we have to have concern for the safety of those troops, as indeed to other troop contributors. And the point that I have been making is that if they cannot safely undertake their task then it is not credible for them to remain. I hope that will not occur but I have to warn that it could.

    QUESTION:

    Is the British government thinking in terms of time to withdraw their troops from the former Yugoslavia and to get a peace plan approved by the various sides?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we have not got a particular timescale in mind and as I indicated just now, I very much hope that it will not be necessary to withdraw troops. But if they cannot satisfactorily undertake their task, and it is not safe for them to remain, then we may have no choice. As far as seeking diplomatic conclusion is concerned, the Foreign Secretary has had a range of meetings over the last weekend with Foreign Minister Juppe, he met Mr Milosevic and others, the Contact Group are resuming and we very much hope the peace plan can move forward, the Foreign Secretary may wish to add to it. Certainly we wish to explore more diplomatic moves to see whether a settlement can be reached, that infinitely is the prize that we must all aim for.

    QUESTION (Nik Gowing, Channel 4 News):

    How much, if a withdrawal has to happen, will be dictated by what is happening on the ground, how much of it in the end will be dictated by your military advice which says Prime Minister if we do not go now, it is going to be increasingly difficult to withdraw. And secondly, is the withdrawal likely to take the 165 days which the UN mentioned at the beginning of last week or can it be done much quicker?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The points you raise are interlinked, of course. But the other point that needs to be made, it is not just a question of the British, it is a question of the other troops who are there as well, they are there as United Nations troops, of course we are particularly concerned about the British contingent there, but the United Nations themselves will be concerned about all the troops. We have to look both at what the situation is at present and what it looks as though it is going to become. Withdrawal is not an overnight affair so of course we must have contingency plans for that, but if you will forgive me I will not go into those in depth.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to ask if from the British point of view can we expect any concrete steps forward from the participants of this summit in connection with the Bosnian problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure what concrete will emerge from this particular summit except the frustration that everyone feels, there is a universal desire to end the fighting and reach a negotiated settlement and repeatedly that universal desire is frustrated on the ground by one party or another. So I think undoubtedly there is a huge amount of frustration about that. What in concrete terms may emerge from this summit, I am not sure that this summit is going to produce anything that will definitively move the process forward and I am not sure it was ever likely that it will be able to do so.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I think the sequences of what needs to happen is now increasingly accepted, the order of things, though some of the substance of them is difficult. First, there has to be a ceasefire and a cessation of hostilities, beginning in Bihac. There is an argument about how long it should be for, arguments about how it should be worked out, and that is really for the UN on the ground to negotiate, as Mr Akashi is trying to do. Then there needs to be acceptance of the Contact Group plan. As you know, it is accepted by everybody except the Bosnian Serbs and even some of them yesterday in Belgrade said they should accept it, that is a new development, foreshadowed to Alain Juppe and myself by Mr Milosevic when we saw him the night before last. But that plan is not yet accepted by the Bosnian Serbs. Then there can be talks about territorial adjustments, about land swaps, among the parties to see if such swaps can be agreed. At the same time there can be talks about Constitutional arrangements, as set out in the Contact Group document. And then there needs to be a Bosnian Serb withdrawal to the 49 percent which under the Contact Group plan they would be entitled to occupy within Bosnia Herzegovina, the integrity of whose frontiers is stated by the Contact Group plan.

    So that is the sequence of events. As I say, there is argument at several points of it, but everyone I have talked to, all members of the Contact Group, President Milosevic, President Izetbegovic, President Tudjman, accept that that is the sequence, that is the order in which these things ought to happen.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As the Foreign Secretary sets out, the route map to peace is perfectly clear. The question at issue is whether the leaders of the opposing groups will actually march down that route, we very much wish to see them do so.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, the Baltic States is considered during all the European structures as a security question but at the same time in Western countries sometimes we hear about some neutrality or special status of the Baltic States because of the neighbourhood of Russia. What is your opinion about these things?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    NATO itself is developing a Partnership for Peace proposal which stretches straight through to Russia and includes Russia. We very much wish Russia to take a full part in the Partnership for Peace. That is a stepping stone. We need to deal with the realities of what needs to be done to avoid awakening old fears across Europe.

    Of course NATO is going to enlarge – that is no longer in question – but NATO is going to enlarge cautiously and carefully and I think no-one should be in any doubt about that. There is a great deal to be done. It isn’t just a political point, it is a military point as well. One needs to ensure that the circumstances are satisfactory for a cautious but worthwhile and continuing enlargement of NATO. That will take some time. In the meantime, Partnership for Peace is a very attractive and very worthwhile stepping stone.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    We certainly see the Baltic States as part of the European family, a welcome part, and we British are very active there, for example with the Nordic countries training the Baltic peacekeeping battalion and last Monday we agreed in the Foreign Affairs Council on a mandate to open negotiations for the next agreement between the European Union and the Baltic States. As the Prime Minister has said, they are part of the Partnership for Peace; they have all three agreed to the Partnership for Peace and are working out the actual content of each Partnership agreement for each of the three countries so things are on the move and I think they will make steady progress.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I had the opportunity of meeting the Baltic leaders not very long ago in Vilnius and we had the opportunity of discussing all this and how the progress forward might come and I think they are very realistic about what can be achieved and in what time-scale.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant , BBC TV):

    Prime Minister, can I ask you a question on the burning domestic issue and that is can you confirm that if the Government were to lose on the VAT issue you wouldn’t try to make up the shortfall by increasing borrowing and are you prepared to make a last minute appeal to potential rebels not to carry out their threat because if they do so at the very least the Government would be seriously embarrassed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope we are going to win the vote this evening on the Budget resolution, I very much hope we are going to win; I shall no doubt learn more about that when I return to the United Kingdom later on this afternoon but the Chancellor set out the circumstances yesterday and I am going to say no more in Budapest this afternoon.

    QUESTION (RAI ITALIAN TV, CHANNEL 3):

    Mr. Prime Minister, do you believe an arms sale embargo should be lifted in Bosnia and in your talk with President Yeltsin what has emerged as an obstacle to developing a common document on Bosnia which is not coming out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me deal with the first point of lifting the arms embargo. We don’t believe lifting the arms embargo would be a wise development; we don’t believe that would aid peace. We do believe that lifting the arms embargo would make it impossible for the United Nations humanitarian mission to safely continue and if the humanitarian mission were to leave that is going to have very profound effects for a lot of people and I think it highly appropriate for people to think what would be the position on the ground if the arms embargo were lifted and the United Nations troops were to move. The single simple question to ask oneself is does that bring peace nearer or does that bring peace further away and I think the answer to that question is self-evident; it takes peace further away, it puts more people’s lives at risk, many more people would be killed and who knows to what extent the war then would spread.

    I don’t believe it is appropriate to have a situation where United Nations troops have had to go, the arms embargo has been lifted and one then sees a much wider war perhaps spreading southwards. Who can tell what precisely would happen? It is conceivable that events will force us down that path but we will not go down it willingly because we think it will add to the bloodshed and not end the bloodshed and it has been our determination to end it from the start of this conflict.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    On the second point, efforts were made to agree a separate document on Bosnia and our delegation tried to reconcile different points of view so there could be a document. My understanding, unless there has been some breakthrough in the last ten minutes, is it has not been possible to agree such a document. Our guidance is therefore the decisions of the Contact Group, the Security Council and indeed under the Security Council of the North Atlantic Council.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t speak for the last ten minutes but it certainly wasn’t agreed fifteen minutes ago.

    QUESTION (Ian Black, Guardian):

    Can I ask you, Prime Minister, whether you are not becoming increasingly concerned about the possible damage to relations between Britain and the United States over the situation in Bosnia? We have had the argument within NATO about bombing and we had Senator Dole in London last week. Is this not going to get worse and worse as long as this situation continues?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think when people look at differences between the United Kingdom and the United States these days they are confusing differences between Congress and the British Government rather than the American Administration and the British Government.

    The American Administration I think now very largely shares our view about the dangers of unilateral lift and what in practice would happen as a result of unilateral lift, so there are no strains of the sort that many people were forecasting some time ago between the British and the United States administrations about this. If I may borrow the word I used a few moments ago, we are both frustrated about the lack of progress, we both want to see a negotiated settlement. I think we both now recognise the dangers of unilateral lift.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I had a long talk last night with Warren Christopher before he went off to Damascus and I must say I felt quite strongly at the end of this talk that we and the United States, after a period of disagreement, were now actually moving in outline and in detail in the same direction. Since the Contact Group agreement on Friday night, the United States has had its contacts with some of the parties, we have had our contacts with some of the parties, we have compared notes, we were all saying the same thing so this is now an effort which we and the Administration are pursuing together. There are voices outside the Administration just as there are voices in Britain who take a different line but the two governments are working closely together.

    QUESTION (Peter Oborne, Evening Standard):

    Mr. Major, at the weekend your Cabinet colleague, Peter Lilley, said that the group of nine should have the whip reinstated at once. Do you share that view?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He didn’t say that. What Peter Lilley said was that there was no choice but to withdraw the whip and he hoped colleagues would return in due course. He didn’t put a time-scale that. I hope colleagues will continue to support the Conservative Government. In due course, therefore, they will no doubt wish to return to the Conservative whip but I think you are putting words into Peter’s mouth.

    QUESTION (Peter Oborne, Evening Standard):

    Secondly, what will you do to those who vote against the Government or abstain tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made it clear that I hope colleagues will support us tonight. I don’t propose to go further than that, you would be surprised if I did. I think that comes into the category of “Very good try, Peter!”

    QUESTION (National Review):

    Back to Bosnia for a minute, Sir. In your speech yesterday you emphasised that no side in the conflict there can expect to gain a military victory. Isn’t that precisely what is happening at the moment with the Serbs occupying 70% of the land there? If, therefore, the British contingent of the UN peace force is brought home, what danger remains, what justification exists for still not allowing the Bosnian government the right to defend themselves through lifting the arms embargo once that danger has been removed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are drawing two things together that don’t necessarily follow. I think it is very likely that if not the British but the United Nations protection forces were to withdraw, then very probably the arms embargo would be lifted but that is a separate proposition from lifting the arms embargo with United Nations troops in the middle of Bosnia and of course there are different things happening in different parts of Bosnia – there are Bosnian advances in parts of central Bosnia.

    One of the things that has bedevilled this whole enterprise from the start is that when one has moved close to what one thought might be a conceivable diplomatic settlement, one side or other has sensed some territorial advantage of the weeks or months that lie immediately ahead and at that stage the diplomatic settlement has slipped away and of course that has happened on a roller coaster basis time and time again.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary, what kind of message do you think it delivers to people living in Europe that this Conference apparently is unable to agree even on words that should be spoken about the greatest crisis on the Continent which is the war in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It would have been very agreeable, we may yet get an agreement but we hadn’t as at fifteen minutes ago; it would have been very agreeable to have had one. I think what they would be better advised to look at is the large number of people in Europe who are anxious for a settlement, who have been sufficiently anxious for a settlement not only to put diplomatic effort into achieving a settlement but troops and humanitarian activities on the ground to try and promote a settlement and ease the suffering until there is a settlement but there are people with sharply differing views here and that is why it has not been possible thus far to agree a form of words.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I don’t honestly think that many people are sitting up looking at their watches and saying: “When is the CSCE going to produce its document on Bosnia?” That is not what is preoccupying people really. The CSCE has to adopt everything by unanimity and that does put a limitation on what it can agree but what has happened – and quite dramatically – over the last few weeks is that all kinds of different ideas about how you can achieve peace in Bosnia have been examined and at least for the moment dismissed. There is no mention in the Contact Group document of the arms embargo; no government is now pressing for that to be lifted. There is no mention of a military victory, indeed it is excluded as a possibility and President Clinton was clear about that yesterday so everyone who is seriously engaged in this matter is now talking about a negotiated peace. Then you lead into how you achieve that and of course that is extremely difficult and has frustrated everybody up to now but then you get into the sequence of events which I mentioned before which I won’t repeat so there has been a lot of clearing out of ideas which don’t fit the present situation and that is helpful because if you are going to seek to do the things that are necessary you have to get out of your mind the things that aren’t possible.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In the best-organised circumstances unanimity is not always possible.

    QUESTION (Judith Dawson, Sky TV):

    I was just wondering about the remarks the Russian Foreign Minister has made about the sanctions on Serbia wondering whether there can be agreement amongst the Contact Group at least that those sanctions are lifted so that you might get Mr. Milosevic to put some pressure on Mr. Karadzic to actually get them to the peace table.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Foreign Secretary met Mr. Milosevic the other day and spent an hour and a half with Mr. Kozyrev this morning so he is perhaps better placed than I am to give you an up-to-date answer.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    Both Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Kozyrev believe that the international community has not sufficiently recognised President Milosevic’s courage in accepting the Contact Group plan; they believe that it should be further recognised by further relief of sanctions. Alain Juppe and I have explained to both of them that that is not practicable unless there is further progress. There has been some relief as you know, there are now flights into Belgrade airport, certain events which fell under sanctions have been relieved and there is a provision for humanitarian relief but further lifting of sanctions will have to depend in practice on further progress and President Milosevic knows that.

  • PMQT – 6 December 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th December 1994. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been attending the Budapest summit of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

    Mrs. Prentice: What advice would the Leader of the House give to his hon. Friends who have made public commitments to vote against any rise in VAT on fuel? Should they stand by their principles and their constituents or should they abandon those principles, ditch their constituents and toe the Tory party line?

    Mr. Newton: My advice to my hon. Friends would be to recognise the importance of the vote tonight and the fact that it will be incumbent on those who wish to vote as the hon. Lady suggests–as she will, no doubt, vote herself–to show a credible alternative and not some cop-out like a windfall tax. The alternatives are other taxes, cuts in expenditure or additional borrowing, with all that that might mean for interest rates.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming majority of the British people are opposed to any fundamental constitutional change? They do not wish to see a Scandinavian-style monarchy and they do not wish to see a socialist republic. They believe that any such changes would be highly expensive and totally unnecessary. They believe, “If it works, don’t fix it.”

    Mr. Newton: I think that my hon. Friend speaks for the large majority of people in this country in finding it almost unbelievable that the Labour party apparently thinks that its first priority should be to have a year of constitutional upheaval, involving all British institutions, including Parliament, and threatening the Union. I believe that Labour has greatly underestimated the strength and depth of public support for the monarchy.

    Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in tonight’s vote on VAT there will be two types of Tory Member: those who will abide by their specific promise made at the general election not to extend VAT on fuel and those who will make any promise to get elected with no intention of keeping to it even when some of the poorest people in our country will be affected?

    Mr. Newton: From what the right hon. Gentleman says, I suppose that we can assume that there will be only one kind of Labour Member–one who votes for an irresponsible cop-out.

    Mr. Blair: Is the Leader of the House really saying that there is no other way to restore the nation’s finances than through this most hated and unpopular tax? Why does he not look first at the executive share options, the abuses of inheritance tax and the windfall profits made by utilities rather than taxing families and pensioners?

    Mr. Newton: I have already described the windfall tax as a cop-out; by definition, a windfall must be a one-off and cannot replace a continuing stream of revenue. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s loopholes, I remind him of the words of the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, who said that this

    “is not a loophole-closing exercise at all, rather a massive increase in business taxation”.

    That is the clue to the Opposition’s position. They prattle all the time about their desire to encourage employment, but every time they are pushed, they want to put up business taxes, raise social costs and damage investment and jobs.

    Mr. Blair: Is it really the nation’s finances that concern the right hon. Gentleman, or the Conservative party’s pre-election tax cuts? May I summarise the strategy for which Tory Members of Parliament will vote tonight? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order in this House. [Interruption.] Order–from all of you.

    Mr. Blair: May I summarise the strategy of Tory Members of Parliament for next year? The price of tax cuts next winter will be some of Britain’s pensioners freezing in their own homes this week.

    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman would have done better to stick to his recent practice of asking rather fewer questions. My priority and the priority of Her Majesty’s Government is to sustain an economic recovery, which is now giving us some of the strongest growth in Europe, low inflation, rapidly falling unemployment and the prospect of improving living standards. That is what we intend to maintain, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman would throw away.

     

    Q3. Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that any decision regarding the Royal Air Force’s future requirement for transport aircraft will not be taken until the spring, when all the alternatives, including the future large aircraft and British Aerospace’s commitment to maintain the existing Hercules fleet at 20 per cent. below the present cost, will have been fully evaluated?

    Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has made it clear that we hope to be able to make an announcement on tranche 3 of the Hercules rolling replacement programme shortly. All relevant factors will be taken into account and, I am sure, will include my hon. Friend’s representations on behalf of his constituents.

     

    Q4. Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Loyden: Does the Leader of the House recall a question asked during Business Question Time about the provision of a copy of the report of the marine accident investigation branch into the recent research done on the MV Derbyshire? Obviously, the Leader of the House made no impression on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport because, in fact, the report is not in the Library. I was also surprised today to see a letter telling the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which had asked for a copy of the report, that the report was a matter for the Secretary of State. Does the Leader of the House not think that the bereaved families, the House and the country are entitled to know what that report says about the investigation carried out and financed by an international union and the RMT?

    Mr. Newton: I well understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter and the continuing concern of bereaved families about the loss of the Derbyshire. The position is that the chief inspector of marine accidents submitted his assessment of the sonar and video material provided by the International Transport Workers Federation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 30 November–less than a week ago. My right hon. Friend is currently considering whether further action needs to taken. I shall, of course, bring to his attention the request that the hon. Gentleman has made.

    Mr. Walden: Does my right hon. Friend think that when a Member of this House makes proposals concerning the constitution it is grown-up politics or intelligent politics for Ministers to hunt him like a pack of demented corgis? How does my right hon. Friend think that we as a party can hope to reconcile the encouragement of indiscriminate deference towards well-born nonentities with our policy of encouraging and promoting social talent in this country?

    Mr. Newton: I would say to my hon. Friends what I said in answer to a previous question. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and some of his colleagues have significantly underestimated the strength and depth of public support for the monarchy, which is not the same as saying that there will not be continued evolution, as there has been during the past couple of years. More important than that, however, I believe that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have gravely overestimated the public’s desire to see constitutional upheaval, including the monarchy, all over the scene. I do not believe that that is what the British public want.

     

    Q5. Dr. Howells: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Dr. Howells: Does the Leader of the House agree that British troops in UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia are doing a superb job in difficult and dangerous circumstances, and that the attacks on General Mike Rose and on British troops by American Congressmen and Bosnian politicians are completely unwarranted and seem designed more to promote further bloodshed than to reach a peaceful situation in the area?

    Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the way in which he put it. It is clear that it is widely supported in the House. For my part, and on behalf of the Government, I can say straightforwardly that we do not accept the criticism of General Rose. He and his small, courageous force are doing an excellent job in the most difficult and trying circumstances and they will continue to have our full support. I might add–I know that there is some concern in the House about the matter–that I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has been much involved with the contact group over the weekend, will wish to make a statement tomorrow.

    Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern and that of the several hundred people who have contacted me about the case of one of my constituents, the elderly pensioner Mr. Ted Newbery? Is he aware that Mr. Newbery was acquitted by a jury of the action that he took in self-defence against a burglar? The burglar was gaoled. Yet the cleared Mr. Newbery has been asked to compensate the guilty burglar. Does my right hon. Friend agree that justice has not been done, that Mr. Newbery’s case should be re-heard and that the law that is applied in such circumstances must be reviewed?

    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is present on the Government Front Bench and will have heard what she said. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand–she may even have anticipated what I am about to say–that I must make the point that the judiciary is entirely independent of Government and that it is not the practice for Ministers to comment on its decisions in quite the way that she invites me to do. On the other hand, she will have gauged, as no doubt others have also done, the reaction in the House generally to the events that she has described.

     

    Q6. Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Leader of the House aware that Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein claims to have no semtex in his hands? Will he assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government will not be misled by such blandishments? In the light of the Hamas parallel in Israel, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the guard will not be lowered, nor the entry requirement for talks?

    Mr. Newton: The handing over of arms and explosives is, as I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates, an important issue to be addressed in the exploratory dialogue which begins on Friday. I can give the hon. Gentleman a clear-cut assurance on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends that Her Majesty’s Government will not leave the people of Northern Ireland–or, indeed, of Great Britain–exposed.

    Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party will always seek to protect those parents who rightly put the interests of their children first in making a choice about where to send their children to school, even if that means defending the Leader of the Opposition from the policies of his own party?

    Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend knows, the policy of Her Majesty’s Government is not only to defend the right of choice of parents in these and other circumstances, but, so far as possible, to enhance and increase them. What I would really like to hear from Opposition Front-Bench Members- -I can see several who have opposed this in the past–is a clear-cut commitment to call off their local authorities, which are trying to frustrate that choice throughout the country.

     

    Q7. Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Davies: As the chair of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has stated, the Student Loans Company Ltd. is in such chaos that students are being denied the resources which the Government say they require in order to live. What do the Government intend to do about that?

    Mr. Newton: What I will do on this occasion is to make the point that the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has just made appears inconsistent with the fact that, during this Government’s period in office, participation in higher education has risen from one in eight of the relevant group to one in three.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Bosnia – 5 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments during an interview on 5th December 1994 relating to Bosnia.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the possibility of early British withdrawal from Bosnia]

    ANSWER:

    I don’t think anyone can be certain about that at the moment. We very much do not wish to withdraw the British troops there. The UNPROFOR troops generally have done a marvellous job; there are huge numbers of people alive today who would not have been alive but for UNPROFOR but if the circumstances become impossible, if the sides are not prepared to reach an agreement, if the fighting goes on, then it might be necessary for UNPROFOR to withdraw. Certainly that possibility is greater now than it was a month or so ago.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Bosnia at CSCE Summit – 5 December 1994

    Below are extracts from Mr Major’s Speech at the CSCE Summit in Budapest on Monday 5th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me say some words on Bosnia.

    None of us can rest while the fighting in Bosnia continues,

    None of us believe either side in the war in Bosnia can win a military victory.

    None of the Contact Group Governments believe that bombing from the air can stop the fighting on the ground.

    The only way forward is by negotiation.

    There is not much time left. The British Government want UNPROFOR to be able to continue its valuable mission. But that is threatened by the continued fighting on the ground, and by the tactics of the Bosnian Serbs, preventing peacekeepers and aid workers from doing their job. We will not be able to keep our troops in Bosnia if they face unacceptable risks, or if they are prevented from fulfilling their humanitarian and peacekeeping mandate.

    What is needed first is a general ceasefire throughout Bosnia and the free passage of UN troops and aid convoys. It is a illusory to think that negotiations on a settlement can restart unless those two conditions are met. Third, the Bosnian Serbs must accept, as all others have done, that the Contact Group map is the basis for a settlement.

    There can be exchanges between the parties on the territorial settlement, The parties will have to agree on a constitution. But both parties have an interest in a negotiated peace which far outweighs anything that can be achieved by continuing the war.

    The British Foreign Secretary and French Foreign Minister visited Belgrade yesterday for talks with President Milosevic. They made clear to President Milosevic the responsibility he bears for helping to bring the conflict in Bosnia to an end.

    In August, he accepted the Contact Group plan which includes recognition of the territorial integrity of Bosnia Herzegovina. He stepped up the pressure on the Bosnian Serbs to accept the plan too. Yesterday, President Milosevic reaffirmed his support for the Contact Group plan. He strongly supports the presence of UNPROFOR in Bosnia. We urged President Milosevic to put his weight behind obtaining, as a matter of urgency, a ceasefire on the ground. The Foreign Secretary has met President Izetbegovic and President Tudjman here to discuss the way forward with them too.

    Meanwhile UNPROFOR continues to mount an outstanding humanitarian mission. Britain is one of the largest troop contributors. The dedication of our troops and aid workers has saved countless lives. British convoys account for 25 per cent of all UNHCR’s aid fleet. Twenty per cent of the humanitarian assistance delivered by air to Sarajevo is brought by British aircraft. This effort should not lightly be cast aside.

    There will be a tragedy if the situation on the ground makes it impossible for UNPROFOR to carry out its mandate and forces it to withdraw. There will be more fighting, probably on a scale that spills over to neighbouring countries. Are the leaders of the region going to lead their people into intensified war and further destruction? Do any of them still believe in this illusion of a military victory? It is their decision. The international community wants to help them. But it cannot shoulder responsibilities that belong to the leaders of the region. Nor can those leaders use UNPROFOR as a shield for the pursuit of warlike objectives. That is what is going on in Bosnia. That must stop.

    As a member of the Contact Group, as a troop contributor, as a member of the Security Council and of the CSCE, Britain will continue to exert itself day by day for a durable peace in Bosnia. I urge all here to do the same.

  • PMQT – 29 November 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th November 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Maddock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

    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.

    Mrs. Maddock: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether his Government will treat any vote on reducing VAT on domestic fuel as an issue of confidence–yes or no?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady knows that VAT on fuel has been approved by the House on several occasions–I think from memory on four occasions. It was introduced two Budgets ago, and clearly it would be a very important vote if a fresh vote were manufactured on the issue. But it does not fall into the same category as the European Communities (Finance) Bill.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mrs. Gillan: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to listen to the interview yesterday with the chairman of Rentokil– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order. [Interruption.] Order. This is using very valuable time.

    Mrs. Gillan: The Opposition find one of the most successful businesses in the UK amusing. The company was awarded a most respected award in a Management Today survey last week. The chairman of Rentokil said that, in his experience, our low inflation, low costs and record exports were unprecedented. Is that not the real story and the background to today’s Budget statement?

    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that business men and business women around the country recognise that we have the best combination of economic circumstances for many years, and my hon. Friend is quite right to say that that is the background to the Budget. There is no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will sketch out further details shortly.

    Mr. Blair: Is it true, as some Back Benchers were saying this morning, that in exchange for their support last night they were offered by Ministers a referendum on further European integration?

    The Prime Minister: I made clear my views on that to the House in May, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary echoed those views only last Friday. They have not changed.

    Miss Emma Nicholson: In his busy day, has the Prime Minister noted the visit of the Speaker of the National Assembly of Kuwait, and his colleagues? Would my right hon. Friend now like to endorse the integrity of Kuwait’s sovereign border and the need to keep Kuwait alone, intact and in power as a state?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do as my hon. Friend asks, and I think that that would be the overwhelming view of every hon. Member. Recently, when it seemed as though–yet again–the integrity of Kuwait’s border was threatened, British troops and aircraft were there to defend it. That would of course be the position were that to happen again.

     

    Q3. Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mr. Byers: Will the Prime Minister confirm that last year his Government spent £355 million on management consultants? Is he aware that such a sum of money would have paid every pensioners’ bill for VAT on fuel? Does the Prime Minister not feel that the time has come for his Government to get their priorities right and to put the needs of pensioners before the profits of City consultants?

    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, substantial sums of money have been made available to assist pensioners with their value added tax on fuel bills. Very large sums have been made available and there is no relationship between that expenditure and expenditure on management consultants to help improve the efficiency of the Government, to release resources, to keep taxes down and to help ensure that there is money available to assist pensioners and others.

    Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend share the widespread disappointment that Norway will now not be alongside us in our battle against a federal Europe and a single currency? In view of the immensely strong ties that exist between our two nations, will he and the Government do their utmost to ensure the continuation of the European economic area, which is such a beneficial arrangement for Norway and the whole of Europe?

    The Prime Minister: I am extremely sorry that the Norwegian people decided not to join, but of course we respect their decision in that. Norway would have been a net contributor to the European Union, and on many issues, but perhaps not all, it would have been a valuable ally for the British point of view in Europe. I am, however, delighted that Austria and the other EFTA states have decided to join.

     

    Q4. Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Ms Hodge: Now that he leads a minority Government, will the Prime Minister break the habit of a lifetime, stick to at least one of his election pledges and scrap the proposed rise in VAT on fuel?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will have heard me say just a few moments ago that the House had debated that matter on four separate occasions.

    Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency alone hundreds of children from less well-off families benefit from the assisted places scheme? Is it not a shame that the Labour party wants to deprive children of that opportunity, especially when some in its leadership have had the benefit of a similar opportunity?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the assisted places scheme. The whole purpose of that scheme and, indeed, of the education reforms generally, is to give children opportunities that otherwise they would not have had. I regret very much that many of those opportunities seem to attract the opposition of the Labour party. One of the more distasteful sides of politics is seeing those who have climbed up the ladder of opportunity kicking it away from other people.

     

    Q5. Mr. Rendel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mr. Rendel: What moral difference does the Prime Minister see between what we all agree is wrong–Members of this House accepting payment to ask questions–and a party which accepts payment from the tobacco industry in return for vetoing a ban on tobacco advertising?

    The Prime Minister: There is no relationship between the two facts.

    Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend will remember the speech that he gave last Thursday at the staff college at Camberley. We know how well the students there received that speech. In it, he referred specifically to Bosnia and said that we could not impose peace on those who did not wish to accept it. He said that if we tried to do so we would leave many hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground. Will the Prime Minister give us all an assurance that those troops–British, French, Dutch and all the others who have served in Bosnia–will be our first priority and that, if need be, he will make sure that they come out of that mess safely?

    The Prime Minister: Let me say to my hon. Friend that I reject totally some of the lurid and misplaced criticism of the United Nations protection forces that have been made in some American newspapers in the past few days. The protection forces in Bosnia are not a combat force; they were never intended to be a combat force; they are not equipped there to be combat force. They are there on a humanitarian mission, and that mission has saved the life of hundreds of thousands of Bosnians.

    I very much wish UNPROFOR to continue its humanitarian work, as long as it can do its job without there being unacceptable risks to the United Nations troops that are there. However, I have to say to the House that if the parties to the conflict make the humanitarian task of UNPROFOR impossible, if they intensify the war rather than seek a peaceful settlement, they could create the conditions in which the United Nations would have no choice but to withdraw. I do not wish that to happen, but I have to say to the House that that could happen.

     

    Q6. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mr. Hughes: When the Prime Minister was first elected four years ago, he set himself the aim of creating a nation at ease with itself. In the light of last night, at which of the following does he think he has been more successful–creating a nation at ease with itself or creating a party at ease with itself? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to hon. Members on the Labour Benches for suggestions as to how I should reply to the question from an hon. Member on the Liberal Benches. Given the fact that one can find a different Liberal policy from each Liberal to the next, and a different Liberal policy from each door to the next, each street to the next and each constituency to the next, I think that the hon. Gentleman should look at his own party before he criticises mine.

    Mr. Ashby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a recent survey of every household in my constituency, more than 90 per cent. expressed themselves satisfied with the national health service? That is reflected in other surveys. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those newspapers that continually talk down one of the finest health services in the world?

    The Prime Minister: I will happily join my hon. Friend in that. There is no doubt about the affection for the national health service and, although we often hear a great deal of generalised criticism of it, that criticism tends not to come from the people who have just had treatment in the national health service. They tend to be very supportive of it, and rightly so, because of the treatment that it offers and the service that it gives.

     

    Q7. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mr. Jones: I am sure that the Prime Minister will wish to join me in congratulating Customs officers, including those based at Holyhead in my constituency, on their efforts to combat drug smuggling. Does he agree that those efforts would be severely damaged if reports are true that 4,000 Customs officers are to lose their jobs as a result of an announcement today? How will that equate with the fact that the Prime Minister has announced the war on drugs? Will it not blow a gaping hole in his policy?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the importance of the battle against drugs; hence the domestic and international initiatives that we have taken and the work set in train by the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. Whatever may happen to the budgets to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I can assure him that the battle against drugs will not suffer.

    Sir Peter Emery: In welcoming Senator Dole to this country, will my right hon. Friend point out that the United States Congress has many friends on both sides of the House, but that that friendship has been built up by Members of Congress and of the Senate fully understanding the work of their allies?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly look forward to meeting Senator Dole tomorrow, and I know that he is also meeting my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. We have a wide range of matters to discuss, and I am sure that those discussions will be fruitful and productive.

     

    Q8. Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Ms Anderson: Will the Prime Minister confirm reports that the President of the Board of Trade is looking again at the privatisation of the Post Office?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady should not be in any doubt that we think that the right decision, when we have a majority in the House, will be to privatise the Post Office.

    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving to the shareholders of privatised utilities greater powers to decide the salaries of their directors in advance, rather than reading about them months after the event?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an ingenious suggestion, which I shall be happy to consider.

     

    Q9. Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 November.

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

    Mr. McKelvey: The Prime Minister appeared to be somewhat ambivalent on the question of a referendum on European Union affairs. Could we have a referendum in Scotland so that we can tell the right hon. Gentleman and the country how we wish to be governed?

    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that there was a referendum on that issue some years ago. The hon. Gentleman knows, and in their hearts most people know, that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament would be immensely damaging both for Scotland and for every other part of the United Kingdom. It may well be Labour party policy, and we shall test to what extent over the weeks ahead, but it is not a thought-out policy, it is not a policy in the interests of Scotland, or of the people of Scotland, and it is not a policy in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference in Chartres – 18 November 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Mitterrand, held in Chartres on Friday 18th November 1994.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I will start by giving you some elements of our conclusions and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will then add to these remarks.

    This was the 17th Franco-British summit. This Chartres summit was mainly geared to a certain number of European questions which are important, some of the really important international problems, on the development of the war in Bosnia, for example, and also matters of defence. That is not a comprehensive list, there is more, but I am telling you what the main themes were.

    On the European matters, we ran through the main issues of the day, the preparation of the Essen European Council meeting, the European summit, also the orientations of the up-coming French Presidency. Of course work has started, in fact in depth thinking has been started too and representatives of the Prime Minister and myself have discussed these matters at length and therefore we are completely ready to start the next phase on 1 January next.

    And we think it is essential to inform our British partners of this and of course our British colleague added his own remarks. The preparation also of the intergovernmental conference in 1996, this is a very important date and the preparation for this has been somewhat delayed by a series of political events in the domestic area. And lastly, but I repeat this is not an exhaustive list, we also talked about the future enlargements of the Union.

    I think we agreed in considering with the Prime Minister that the urgent thing was to consolidate what we had already achieved. That does not mean that we refuse to examine the way documents should be changed, that text should be changed and practices and customers too, each time that is necessary. But it would perhaps be a mistake to try to move yet even further forward without having consolidated what we had already achieved. That being said, we remain entirely open to suggestions from our partners.

    On international affairs, as I said before, the discussion was mainly-on Bosnia. I imagine that you have questions on that, therefore I will keep my explanations for later on.

    On defence, first we have clarified a decision which I think is very important and significant for the future, on the setting up of a Franco-British Euro-air Group. The purpose of the exercise is to train, to prepare in other words, our Air Forces to work together, to get them used to this, and in particular with regard to humanitarian operations and peace-keeping and peace-making operations. For example, there was a statement made in [indistinct] by the Western European Union in which these points were mentioned. And I think this project, because we want to move forward in pragmatic terms, a Europe .of defence, this group will be established in the UK at High Wycombe. The first Commander of the group will be a French Air Force General.

    And then another subject was the prevention and settlement of conflicts in Africa. But I have noticed, and I was very happy to note, Prime Minister, if I may say so, I was delighted to see that we have to some extent emerged from the situation that we were in in 1904, it is a bit late in the day but we have made progress. So we decided anyway to pursue cooperation between the two countries and with particular regard to preventive diplomacy. The idea is to give logistic and other support to the African countries which in the framework of action carried out in particular by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), on the basis of a mandate from the United Nations, or to the extent the OAU would ask for this, we have just emerged ourselves from a meeting with our African partners and I am delighted to see the cooperation among us, among these two countries which have great experience in Africa, that such cooperation is moving forward, and I particularly appreciate the contribution of the UK in this respect.

    Next, cooperation as far as armaments are concerned, well you are already informed of this, the tripartite frigate with Italy, the UK, France, the so-called new generation, also known as the Horizon Project. That is the vocabulary, our British friends are always at the front of the pack, but these are important things. So this is very satisfactory, I think more forward, than the military for the future FLA, the future large aircraft. Here obviously transport capacity has to be developed and on a European basis. This aircraft is the object of the project and several other countries are already associated, including Germany, Italy and Spain.

    It has been agreed to set up a study group, trusted with the task of looking specifically at the possible participation of the UK in this project. But I want to emphasise in speaking to our British friends, and in their presence, the precise importance that we attach to this project.

    In the nuclear field we have reasserted the intention of both sides to strengthen cooperation between our two countries. I made a remark earlier which is not a restrictive remark, because I personally very much intend to see the development of more and more cooperation, which will be the very foundation of European security, because can you imagine European security without the support of nuclear forces, that would be illusory. Nuclear deterrence remains an essential element of our defence policies and the more our defence policies are one single defence policy the better that would be.

    In economic and financial affairs I just mention in passing, the most striking feature was confirmation of the economic recovery under way. It appeared necessary to emphasise the implementation of the measures decided in Naples on the debt of the poorest countries, 67 percent was the figure mentioned.

    Also, because curiously there is some talk of this, the question of the ratification of the GATT agreement, a discussion of this. It is not that we have become less enthusiastic spectators of all this, but what has been achieved has been achieved and has been done. And our officials have spent enough time and trouble to get these agreements through, it would really be rather a pity to have to come back on all this, I think it is in everyone’s interest.

    So those are the few remarks I wanted to say at the outset before asking Mr Major and Mr Balladur if they would like to add a few words which would add to my brief summary of what we have done.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it will be apparent from what the President of the Republic has said that we have had an extremely productive summit, not just in the discussions that I have been privileged to have with the President and Prime Minister, but those which my colleagues have had with their counterparts in a range of different areas.

    Can I firstly say how grateful I am to the President, to the Prime Minister and to the people of Chartres for their hospitality on this occasion, it has been a delight to be here and also extremely useful.

    Let me pick up some of the points that the President has made. What has been apparent from our discussions today is that the interests of Britain and France coincide in a very wide range of areas, we have reached specific agreements today on a number of matters. Let me add a point to some of those that the President has mentioned.

    We have agreed today on the formation of a Franco-British Euro-Air Group. This is a natural development I think from our long-standing defence cooperation. The group’s headquarters will be at High Wycombe in England. The first Commander of the Group will be a French General and thereafter command of the group will alternate between British and French officers.

    Britain and France are the only two European members of NATO with the capability significantly to project military power overseas. And the new group will allow us to coordinate our Air Forces so that we can set up more speedily combined operations in peace-keeping or in humanitarian missions.

    We have also agreed to work together in another area where we have a self-evident joint interest, and that is of course in peace-keeping in Africa. In September in the South African Parliament I announced an initiative to help African countries develop further their peace-keeping capabilities. The French government, quite separately, had put forward very similar ideas. What we have agreed today is that our approaches are compatible and that we will now take them forward together with our African partners.

    We discussed also military matters, as the President has said. Specifically on military transport aircraft, I explained to the President and to the Prime Minister that British requirements fell into two quite different parts. The first was that part of our present Hercules fleet is very near the end of its operational life. We shall need to decide very soon whether to refurbish these aircraft or to buy a number of Hercules 0130J replacements to meet our immediate needs. But secondly, and as a quite separate matter, we shall need to consider our longer term requirement for similar aircraft and we are interested in exploring whether participation in the future large aircraft project would be a possible way of meeting this longer term requirement. And so to help in this I have today agreed with our French hosts that a group of senior experts from both our governments should be tasked to study possible British participation in the future large aircraft, it is without commitment but I think it is entirely right that we should examine it carefully to see the extent to which our military and our economic needs might coincide, and the extent to which, provided they do and a satisfactory agreement can be reached, that we may proceed together in this particular project.

    In the fairly wide ranging discussions we had on Europe I underlined one very high priority for Britain and was delighted to find that this was fully shared by the French government. I refer to the absolute necessity to crack down on fraud, waste and mis-management in the European Union that has been set out so clearly in the Court of Auditors Report over recent-days. Fraud in the European Union is not a fresh problem, it is not a concern that has just suddenly arisen for us, we had examined it before, we have looked at it before. The Maastricht Treaty gave the Court of Auditors new powers to uncover fraud and we intend to back the Commission fully, and the Court of Auditors fully, in using those powers. There is no doubt, following the Court of Auditors report, that there is a job to be done. First, we would like to see the Commission step up its flying inspection squads to detect fraud and fraudsters. That is an area where there should be no qualms whatsoever in any quarter about backing the Commission in the work that it has to do. And secondly, as I set out in my speech in Leiden some months ago, the European Parliament as a whole needs to act on fraud and I propose to pursue this with the President of the European Parliament. And third, we will insist at Essen that the Council acts on the Court’s special reports on particular areas of the budget and we wish to see member states cooperating in taking tougher action against criminal fraud, and I believe that is very much in the interests of taxpayers right across the European Union and particularly of course in Germany, France and Britain, the three largest net contributors to the European Union budget. And fourthly on this issue, we are in fact already in touch with the German Presidency to see how we can use the Essen European Council to add yet further momentum to the war against fraud, and I was delighted to discover today that our French colleagues not only agree with us on the need to take action like this, but also will regard this as a matter of importance to them in the French Presidency that begins on 1 January next year.

    We discussed, as the President said, a wide range of other domestic and international matters, the President mentioned Bosnia, there were many others he could have mentioned as well. I think rather than deal with all those at this stage, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have in a few moments time. So I will end my comments at this point.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I asked Mr Balladur, the French Prime Minister, whether he would have anything to add, he said not for the time being. We will therefore proceed to the traditional exchange of questions and answers. But I would like to say, not simply for reasons of courtesy, how grateful I am to the British delegation and to Mr Major, the British Prime Minister, for the way they have approached and undertaken the Franco-British talks. I have found that the climate that has prevailed today has been of the best that I have seen in the past few years and I wish to thank them for that. I wish also to thank Chartres, Mr George Le Moin [phon] its Mayor, for the welcome they have extended to us which has placed the summit in a context which, despite meteorological difficulties, has been particularly pleasant, and maybe accept our expression of gratitude.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, with reference to Bosnia, following the American withdrawal of the embargo monitoring unit, it would appear that the Americans are considering therefore the possibility of lifting the embargo on weapons to Bosnia. Do you subscribe to this or are you thinking about whether French troops should continue to be part of UNPROFOR?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    You may be right, you may be going a bit faster than events but if it is true that the Americans have announced that they wanted to change their line on Bosnia, in other words they are moving towards lifting the embargo and in that direction, it is by no means certain that they will actually go as far as providing weapons. According to some information we see in the press that would appear to be the case but that being said it is by no means certain, it may not happen at all.

    It is very difficult to talk with you about information which we actually don’t have and at present there is a curious ambiguity between the reality of what the American forces are doing there as American forces and the same American forces as members of NATO and therefore at the disposal of the UN. This sort of dual use of troops, will this last or not? I don’t know.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    As the President said, part of the question is based on information we don’t at the moment have. It is certainly the case that we do not favour lifting the arms embargo, that is undoubtedly the case, we think lift is a last resort: We are determined to ensure that it does not come to the situation where the embargo is lifted.

    We are in Bosnia as indeed France and other colleagues are in Bosnia to do a particular job; we are there to escort humanitarian aid and UK troops will stay there while they can do a useful job without unacceptable risk.

    What concerns us about lifting the embargo is that the logic of lift is that there will be more war; the consequence of that is that there will be more suffering. It is our judgement that a settlement will only come from negotiation. What concerns us is that lifting the embargo would unravel the approach that we have followed so we hope that it will not come to that.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I can but confirm what has just been said. I didn’t go into an explanation myself but we already had occasion to talk about this; with the French press, France is very much against – and the Foreign Minister has been explicit on this – the lifting of the embargo and it is difficult to announce conclusions and decisions that we don’t yet know about but it is certain that the problem of the presence of French forces – and we want them to stay with the international forces – will arise inevitably if there is a lifting of the embargo and maybe we will have to talk about this at a later stage.

    QUESTION:

    A question to you, President, and the British Prime Minister as well:

    Ultimately, given the information you have today, have you not reached the conclusion that you will not be able to withstand the American decision for much longer and will you take on the responsibility of keeping troops there, be they French or British, in situ especially if they are likely to come under fire from both sides?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I think I had already answered that question before you asked it. Will we be able to hang on for long? I don’t know. Our position is that we are certainly not going to leave our soldiers there caught between the two fires which you were mentioning.

    There is a question of principle; will that situation arise? We don’t know. Secondly, if it does arise, obviously the logistic and technical implications are quite considerable but now we are talking about the political aspect of the military options. It is clear that it doesn’t seem to us to be compatible to be on the one hand encouraging the people who are making war to make more intense war and then at the same time to leave our Loops in between them as sort of buffers which would be a purely fictitious situation. This in fact simply adds to what John Major said really on our behalf in a way and it is a difficult embroglio and obviously the answer is negotiation and we haven’t finished our negotiation yet.

    QUESTION (Nick Gowing, Channel 4 News)

    Could I ask you both what pressure you now plan to put on both the American Administration and the new American Congress to ensure your worst fears do not come to pass, that you are forced into this position of deciding whether to keep your troops in Bosnia or not?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    This isn’t a new problem or a new position. The position the British Government have taken over the lifting of the arms embargo is not a novel one, it has been known in Washington and known to Congress for a long time. That is the position and we will continue to sustain that position for the reasons I set out a few moments ago.

    We sent troops to Bosnia to do a particular job. It is very easy to look at the difficulties that still exist in Bosnia and forget what those difficulties might well have been if British troops, French troops and other troops had not been in Bosnia over the past two-and-a-half to three years. It is difficult to estimate what might have happened to the fighting, difficult to estimate how it might have spread, difficult to estimate how many people alive today might not have been alive but for the activities of the UN protection forces as a whole so clearly we sent them to do a particular job. I wish to see them complete that job.

    Self-evidently, we must look at the safety of the troops and their capacity to do their job in future. The right way for us to address that is for us to continue to argue what we believe is the rational case for proceeding with negotiations to try and find a settlement and for not lifting either collectively or unilaterally the arms embargo and we will continue to argue that case.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    We are awaiting confirmation. There is no divergence of interpretation between the British and the French but there is a certain amount of information that we haven’t really got yet that we need in greater depth. It is clear that it is easier for the Americans to withdraw their troops from Bosnia than us because they haven’t got any there anyway!

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    Prime Minister, given the uncertainties surrounding America’s future role in NATO and given the announcement today of the Anglo-French initiative, do you believe the time has come for urgent action in developing a European defence identity as something that should happen perhaps before the 1996 IGC, what form do you think it might take and do you have fewer reservations about a European defence dimension that you have about a European social dimension?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Let me pick up that point in some detail – uncertainties about the American position in NATO. I don’t believe there are any uncertainties about the American position in NATO. NATO remains the bedrock of our defence in the West and I think it is going to remain the bedrock of our defence in the West. Only within the last year or so President Clinton has re-confirmed his determination to leave 100,000 American troops on the mainland of Europe for the defence of Europe so I think nobody in looking at other areas of collaboration should doubt the primacy of the NATO Alliance, the permanence of the NATO Alliance or the importance of the NATO Alliance; it is absolutely fundamental to our future defence in the West and I do not believe anything can shake that.

    What does not follow from that is that there is not separately and in alliance with NATO – of which Britain, France and other western European countries are members – a capacity for further collaboration between western European NATO allies and that is what we have been doing in Bosnia of course, Britain and France in particular. It is what we anticipate we may well be called upon to do in the future in areas of peacekeeping and humanitarian aid; it is what underlies the decision today to establish the joint structure that we proposed.

    But defence is not a zero sum game. Because Britain and France are able to make greater cooperation wholly desirable – improved cooperation in my judgement – that does not in any sense detract from either our individual commitment to NATO or our joint commitment to NATO. It isn’t zero sum – it is a better use of our collective capability to defend ourselves within NATO and in some aspects as NATO partners bilaterally.

    QUESTION (Paul Taylor, Reuters):

    Mr, President and Mr. Prime Minister, how close are you would you say on the future of European institutions as they will come to be discussed at the 1996 intergovernmental conference and do you believe that 1996 should be a new re-founding act for Europe or a rather more modest incremental development of what was agreed at Maastricht?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I think that there would not be much point in repeating what has been said in Maastricht; the important thing is to do what we are supposed to do. If you look at the progress made in reality concerning the decisions at Maastricht I don’t think that we need an order of priority there but I think it is more important to implement what has been decided than to think up yet new ideas. Of course, any interesting suggestion will be looked at with interest by France but I think the priority is to first of all implement what we have already decided.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I entirely agree with that – the President made that point earlier in his remarks – that one needs to consolidate and deal with what was decided at Maastricht. I know there are some people who believe that there is – if I may borrow a Chinese phrase – likely to be a great leap forward in 1996. I don’t believe there is going to be a great leap forward in 1996 and I don’t know of any European head of government who does.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Mind you, it would be quite a leap forward to put into practice what one has decided to do! [Laughter]

    QUESTION:

    President and Prime Minister, I would like to come back for a moment to Bosnia. Do you not think that your public opinion will be surprised that President Clinton should have taken such a decision without informing you in some way or another insofar as you are often in touch with him, he is a privileged ally of yours, and the US is part of the Contact Group or do you explain this decision only in terms of American domestic policy?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    You know as much as I do about that, probably more on the problems of internal political affairs in the United States. It is clear that Mr. Clinton is faced with a new situation; he has a Congress that has been very clear about its intentions on Bosnia so I think the two issues can’t be separated from each other. It is difficult to say that because for months, even years, this debate has been going on and I think no-one was presumably taken by surprise in learning of the decisions taken in Washington but it is true that things have taken on a sort of new course and it seems to us to be a rather sort of brutal, sudden change of course, it is perhaps even a dangerous turning. It hasn’t been decided collectively, that is true, but that is the way things are and I am trying to be as clear in my answers as you were in your question.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I think much of the question spreads beyond “Sharpguard” and perhaps looks at other things that haven’t been decided so to that extent the question is based upon a premise that at the moment is not reality and in my experience the relationship and the consultation between the United States and her western European partners has been very good, is very good and I have no doubt is going to remain very good in future and I think, frankly, people have made rather too much of the particular issue of “Sharpguard”

    The work that “Sharpguard” was doing continues, other Western European Union navies are participating, there are eleven countries currently involved. The decision made by the United States has been overdramatised I think in some areas. It won’t significantly the operation and there were only two United States ships involved. I think to draw, as perhaps the questioner had in mind, rather wider conclusions from that is to draw conclusions that are not justified by the reality of what has happened.

    QUESTION (Richard Dowden, The Independent):

    Are the announcements made today about defence cooperation simple bilateral cooperation in interesting important areas but of no more significance than that or could they be the foundations and building blocks of a future possible European defence force?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    If I may pick up the point that underlies that question, Richard, it would be a suggestion that suddenly, uniquely and extraordinarily, Britain and France had decided to cooperate on some defence matters. I have to say to everyone present that that isn’t the case. The cooperation on defence matters between Britain and France is very substantial and has been very substantial for a very long time. We perhaps have more joint ventures and collaboration with France on defence matters than anyone else; that has been the case for a very long period. These are important developments but to draw the conclusion that these are developments of a wholly different nature from what we have seen before is I think going too far.

    We are looking as far as the future large aircraft is concerned at the possibility, all other things being equal, of a venture in which we will collaborate; we have done that before, there are other ventures going on at the moment that the President mentioned and that is very good. Certainly the establishment of the air group is a new but entirely rational development building on the cooperation that we have had before so rather than regarding it as some startling innovation I regard it as a further example of a growing level of defence cooperation that we have been privileged to enjoy with France for a long time and. I hope it will continue to grow.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    And in that respect I pointed that many of these projects have already been agreed to by a number of European countries so this isn’t always a specifically Franco-British approach in all fields. That being said, there is something specifically Franco-British in expressing the hope that it will serve European defence.

    QUESTION:

    A question, Mr. President, that may be of interest to your prime ministerial guest but to do with domestic policy. It has been suggested that a new referendum be held before we move on to economic and monetary union in 1997. I would like to hear your views on the matter.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Do you only mean mine?

    SAME LADY:

    And the views of the British Prime Minister which might be interesting as well but not the French Prime Minister. [Laughter].

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    It would be an impertinence to comment on French internal politics – not now nor in the future – but it was a very good try.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I think as far as referendums go, one mustn’t overdo these things. On that in particular, the decision has been taken by the French people themselves so I don’t really think that the matter is open for discussion quite honestly and as this concerns the very distant future anyway and I will certainly refrain from getting too much involved in that particular debate.