The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: G7

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 July 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Group of Seven Summit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Engagements

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Lyon – 27 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Lyon, held on Thursday 27th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you share President Clinton’s objective of making terrorism a major feature of this G7 summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I do, very strongly. The outrage at Dhahran and the outrage at Manchester, where only good fortune prevented many people being killed, means that it is an issue we must address. We began to address it after the Sharm el Sheikh summit and I would like to carry it further.

    QUESTION:

    What can you do in practical terms to help to tackle terrorism? Is it just going to be a lot more talk?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope not. We have got some proposals to discuss and I believe others have as well, so we will see what comes out of them.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask your feelings after England’s defeat in the European soccer last night and what did you have to say to the team afterwards?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I was immensely sorry they lost. But soccer won last night. It was a truly wonderful game, I think the best England game certainly that I have ever personally seen and I believe they played magnificently. So there is no need for too great a disappointment in defeat. The way they played was a credit to the country and a credit to themselves and I hope they will see it that way. I didn’t see the whole team afterwards, I saw one of two of them and I said precisely that to them.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you about the disturbances in Trafalgar Square last night, do you think that let the side down somewhat?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we need to get it in context. They were disgraceful, but they were a relatively small number of people compared to the 75,000 people in Wembley and the literally many millions of people who were watching that game on television. That demonstration was not remotely in the spirit of the whole tournament, it was not remotely in the spirit of the way the England team played and it was not remotely in the spirit of sportsmanship that we actually saw on the pitch at Wembley last night. These people should not besmirch soccer. They are not soccer supporters, they do damage to soccer.

    QUESTION:

    Apart from terrorism, what else do you think should be high on the agenda at this summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are a number of things. Multilateral trade of course, I would like to see if we can make further progress on assistance with international debt for some of the poorer countries, I think both of those matters will clearly be high on the agenda. I think there is no doubt also that we will want to spend some time discussing Bosnia and the need to make progress in Bosnia towards meeting the Dayton Accords and the removal of Mr Karadzic.

    QUESTION:

    Will you take up with President Clinton the United States’ actions against firms who do business with Cuba, Libya or Iran?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is a matter that will come up. It is not particularly a summit matter, it is a matter that is more likely to be dealt with bilaterally over the weeks ahead, but I am sure we will discuss it in passing.

    QUESTION:

    Are you happy with the US action?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think our position is well known on that and I will discuss it with the President later today.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Kuchma – 18 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Kuchma, held in Kiev on Thursday 18th April 1996.

    PRESIDENT KUCHMA:

    It is a pleasure to welcome our honourable guest, the Prime Minister of Great Britain to the capital of Ukraine, the city of Kiev. This is a continuation of the political dialogue which began between our two countries. We discussed the issues of bilateral relations with our two countries and I expressed my gratitude to the Prime Minister for the support to Ukraine for its independence, for the support of Ukraine’s integration into the European Union. Priority number one for us is the economic relations, [indistinct] with such a country as the United Kingdom which is recognised worldwide as the leader in developing economic relations. The issue of European security has also been in the focus of attention of our talks. We discussed the issue of the impending G7 summit in Moscow, and many others.

    I am happy that we share opinions on most of these issues and we are progressing. For Ukraine has no way back. That is why I would like to extend my gratitude to the honourable Prime Minister for his visit and I am pleased to give the floor to him.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, thank you very much indeed. Perhaps I can firstly say that I am delighted to be here in Ukraine, to have the opportunity of these discussions with you this morning and with the Prime Minister later this afternoon. I am also delighted that we have already been able to sign mutual confiscation agreements to deal with drugs and other serious crimes. That is a matter we discussed when last we met, I am delighted the agreements have been reached because I regard them as a key part of the international fight against crime.

    But I am delighted to be here too for another reason. And that is because we are now able to visit an independent Ukraine, independent for five years, that has now set its feet firmly towards a new and different future. We believe that Ukraine’s success is important to Europe’s stability and we are firm supporters of the independent and democratic Ukraine that has been created.

    Over the last few years, Ukraine has been undergoing some very remarkable political and economic reform. None of these reforms is easy, a great deal of progress has been made both economically and politically. We understand very clearly the difficulty of these economic reforms, but we are utterly confident that as they are carried forward they will lead to a far better economic future for Ukraine.

    We wish to assist to the extent that we can. We shall certainly be providing extra resources for the Know How Fund, particularly to help in the key energy sector in the Ukraine.

    We have been discussing over luncheon a new British Embassy in Kiev which will be a visible illustration of the improved relationship between our two countries.

    Later on today I will visit a new British Council office, and very shortly important business trade missions will come here, one in particular led by the Lord Mayor of London.

    The President and I have looked this morning at the opportunities for increasing trade and investment between our two countries. We both believe that there is ample scope to do so, both for bilateral trade and also for bilateral investment, one country in another.

    We have also had the opportunity of previewing some of the matters that we will discuss at the G7 plus 2 Summit later on this week. I have found it a most useful and worthwhile occasion and I am most grateful to the President for his hospitality.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what can the West do to prevent another Chernobyl and what, if anything, will come out of the G7 that will be helpful to that process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is clearly going to be one of the matters that is going to be discussed at the G7, important to the President, important to me, important to the rest of the G7. It is now the 10th anniversary I think since the terrible tragedy at Chernobyl. We are fully committed to the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding that has been signed between Ukraine and between the G7. There are funds ready there to be used, there are expert groups looking at what needs to be done, there is a European Union review of the particular difficulties relating to the sarcophagus. So there is a lot to be discussed and I would anticipate that that would be an important issue in our discussions later this week.

    QUESTION:

    In what context was the issue of Chernobyl discussed, will there be a joint programme of action in Moscow?

    PRESIDENT KUCHMA:

    In fact the [indistinct] has been worked out already, starting with the Memorandum of Understanding signed in December 1995. Now it will be the decision of Ukraine to close down Chernobyl. There is a wish and the decision of G7 to participate in implementing this decision, there is such a wish and I am confident that there will be practical efforts and practical steps in its implementation.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Halifax Summit – 19 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Halifax Summit, delivered on 19th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Halifax summit, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury. I have placed the communique and the chairman’s statement in the Library of the House.

    As last year, the summit was in two parts. We started with a G7 meeting focusing on economic matters and were then joined by President Yeltsin for a G8 meeting on wider political issues. In the G7 countries, growth averaged 3 per cent. last year, with the United Kingdom growing somewhat faster. The issue of most concern is the continuing high level of unemployment, particularly in continental Europe. Unemployment, for example, across the western European states in the European Union is currently at 11 per cent. We are all agreed on the policies needed to tackle that. They are those set out in the G7 jobs conference last year and taken forward in the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study: more flexible labour markets, deregulation and the scrapping of restrictive practices, and better training and education. Those are the policies being pursued by the Government of this country, which have led to unemployment falling by more than 600,000 in the past two years.

    We agreed to hold another jobs conference in France next year to review progress on those issues. All countries will be represented by Finance and Employment Ministers, and further consideration will be given to including others, such as Education and Trade Ministers, as well.

    Last year at Naples we agreed to conduct a review of international institutions. At Halifax we have drawn up a series of specific proposals to strengthen the Bretton Woods institutions and the United Nations.

    We all agreed that the most effective way to tackle exchange rate instability is the pursuit of sensible economic policies domestically. Finance Ministers and central bank governors will maintain close co-operation on economic surveillance and on exchange markets. We also agreed on a range of measures to strengthen co-operation between the world’s financial regulators and supervisors on such matters as prudential standards and transparency. Among the proposals for the international financial institutions, I would single out those aimed at improving the International Monetary Fund’s early warning mechanisms and its ability to handle crises where prevention fails.

    The summit also discussed the problems of poverty and sustainable development. We agreed in particular to encourage better use of all existing World bank and IMF resources to tackle the substantial burden of multilateral debt faced by some of the world’s poorest countries. That is an area where the UK has taken the lead in pressing for action. All G7 countries have now agreed to explore the option of pledging some of the IMF’s gold, and we and some others will continue to argue the case for modest outright sales of gold to help reduce the debt burden.

    This year is the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. We all wish to see a strong and purposeful UN, able to play the full role envisaged under its charter. We agreed that reform is essential if the UN is to continue to meet the demands placed upon it. We have made a number of proposals for eliminating duplication and waste, and consolidating and streamlining the UN’s economic and social bodies.

    We shall be actively pursuing those proposals in partnership with the rest of the UN’s membership, as decisions on them are not solely for the G7. We also recognised the need for the UN to be properly financed. All UN member states should meet their financial obligations and agree to reform the system of assessment. The G7 gave a strong push to the next stage in liberalising world trade. There is unfinished business from the Uruguay round, as well as new areas to be tackled, including non-tariff barriers, investment and Government procurement.

    We dealt with a number of other issues, including the environment, where we agreed on the need to review and, where appropriate, strengthen the commitments that we made at the 1992 Rio summit. We also discussed international crime, where the G8 has taken up our suggestion to establish a high-level group to look at existing arrangements for co-operation against crime and to make practical proposals to improve them.

    President Yeltsin played a full part in the political discussions. He described the tragic consequences of the taking of hostages by Chechen guerrillas in Budyonnovsk. The crisis, which has claimed many lives, has taken a new turn today. The guerrillas are now reported to be leaving, by agreement, but with a large number of hostages as well as Russian deputies and journalists. I hope that there will be no further loss of innocent lives, but the wider problem of Chechnya remains. We urged President Yeltsin to do all that he could to find a political solution.

    Terrorism has been a problem in many of our countries, and we agreed to set up a better system for exchanging information about terrorist incidents and methods of dealing with them. We also agreed to President Yeltsin’s proposal to hold a special summit in Moscow next year to discuss a range of issues on civil nuclear safety. On Bosnia, Security Council resolution 998 on the reinforcement of UN protection forces was adopted on 16 June. The summit supported the new rapid reaction force, which the UK and France have helped to establish. President Clinton said that he had not yet secured congressional approval for that force to be funded from UN assessments, but made it clear that he wanted the US to share in the financing.

    Following new offensives in Bosnia, summit leaders called for an immediate moratorium on military operations so that political negotiations based on the contact group proposals could resume. Over the past day, the remaining protection forces’ hostages have been released and the level of fighting has decreased. There has so far been no significant change in the military situation as a result of the latest offensives, and we continue to believe that this question will not be solved militarily.

    Bosnia clearly remains in a dangerous phase. Mr. Carl Bildt, the former Swedish Prime Minister, is about to begin his mission as the European Union’s negotiator. He will do so with the strong support of all the eight summit nations.

    This was a summit that addressed a range of primarily long-term but in some instances short-term issues: growth and employment; the reform of international institutions; the debt problems of the poorest countries; pushing forward free trade; the conflict in Bosnia; and terrorism.

    The people of Nova Scotia gave the summit a conspicuously warm welcome. That helped to make it a friendly and productive meeting without the over- elaborate formalities that have often characterised previous summits. That is something that I have pressed for for some time, and I hope that we can take the process forward even more next year.

    Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield): I broadly welcome the statement that the Prime Minister has just made. I shall deal with it briefly under four key headings: Bosnia; global finance; action on jobs and the environment; and other related matters.

    On Bosnia, the Prime Minister knows that we support the deployment of the rapid reaction force. May I simply press him, though, on its role? Is the intention that it be limited mainly to the protection of UNPROFOR troops, or will it be more vigorous in implementing the UN mandate, for example, in trying to secure convoy routes or in the policing of safe areas? I add our regret that the United States Congress has not thought it right–yet, at any rate–to contribute to the funding of the force. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is likely to change? Are there other measures with which the US is proposing to help?

    Was it impressed on President Yeltsin in particular that continuing pressure on Serbia by Russia is essential to a solution in Bosnia? Did the Prime Minister make it clear to Mr. Yeltsin, as other leaders did, that our desire for him to act over Serbia, and our deploring of any acts of terrorism by Chechen guerrillas, does not mitigate our concern for minimum standards of proper conduct on all sides in the handling of the crisis in Chechnya?

    On global finance, I regret that the Government’s proposals on the use of gold sales to help the debtor nations did not find support. Does the Prime Minister agree with us that the summit was disappointingly empty of new measures to assist poverty in the poorer countries? Does he further agree that such measures are in the interests not just of those countries but of the wealthier nations, too?

    It is clearly right, especially following the financial crisis in Mexico, that the IMF pays greater attention to the way in which a crisis is prevented rather than merely to the way in which it is resolved once it has happened. I therefore agree with the improvements that have been suggested to allow for a better early warning system where problems have arisen and with the key benchmarks agreed on the publication of economic and financial data, but does the Prime Minister accept that doubling the IMF’s general arrangement to borrow, as has been agreed, to allow earlier intervention in an emergency, is sensible, but only if the other reforms that have been agreed and the tough conditions necessary are put in place? I also welcome the increased emphasis on co-operation over banking regulation in the wake of Barings, but is not the central issue the revolution in the globalisation of the financial and currency markets, which now wield massive speculative power over the Governments of all countries and have the capacity seriously to disrupt economic progress?

    Apart from the general words– [Interruption.] Conservative Members may find this a problem of no account at all–but that is hardly surprising –but I think that most sensible people do. Apart from the general words in the communique , were there any specific proposals as to how the G7 countries– [Interruption.] I do not think that Conservative Members realise that the G7 summit specifically drew attention to those problems, and most sensible people would regard it as intelligent to ask questions of the Prime Minister on them. Apart from the general words in the communique, were there any specific proposals as to how the G7 countries could promote the greater stability in the new financial world that they have asked for?

    On jobs, without such stability, job prospects are much bleaker, and the Prime Minister will know that the G7 suggested, as well as the elimination of unnecessary regulation, a greater emphasis on investment in skills. Will he not therefore reconsider the irresponsible cut of around 20 per cent. in the Government’s budget for training the long-term unemployed? Does he agree with the emphasis in the communique not just on jobs, but on jobs of quality that pay wages that allow people to enjoy decent living standards? As for the environment and related matters, especially nuclear power, we welcome the statement on the environment and, in particular, the decommissioning of Chernobyl nuclear power station. But is the Prime Minister as sanguine as the G7 appears to be about the state of the other nuclear power stations in the former eastern bloc? The chairman’s statement mentions the importance of bringing the chemical weapons convention into force at the earliest possible date; what are the Government’s current plans for its ratification, and when can we expect legislation?

    We also welcome the initiative on fighting international crime and terrorism. Does the Prime Minister agree that the global nature of organised crime today makes concerted action imperative? We also approve of the mention of the position of Mr. Salman Rushdie, and the support for him expressed at the summit.

    Finally, may I make a point with which I am sure the Prime Minister will agree, although he may not say so? When he next represents our country at an international financial summit, will he do so without his efforts being overshadowed by undisciplined shenanigans on the Conservative Benches? In the end, the loser from such behaviour is not just the Conservative party, but Britain.

    The Prime Minister: First, let me thank the Leader of the Opposition for the areas in which he supported the decisions and proposals that were made at the summit.

    I shall take the right hon. Gentleman’s questions in the order in which he raised them. He asked about Bosnia. The role of the rapid reaction corps is primarily to reinforce and protect, but it may well be operating in greater numbers in terms of some elements of convoy protection. For example, it will have much better equipment to remove mines. It is difficult not to give a misleading impression by saying that it is there to add muscle; it is emphatically not there to fight–that point should be clear–but the greater reinforcements and equipment will assist in ensuring that more convoys can get through, because of the ability that they will have in greater numbers to deal with problems that are currently extremely difficult to overcome.

    As for funding by Congress, President Clinton faces the difficulty that he needs the approval of Congress and at present does not have it. He wishes to pay, and he wishes to make it clear that the United States would wish to pay its equivalent to an assessed United Nations contribution towards the cost of the rapid reaction corps. He will be looking to see how that can be done. Moreover, around the table, every Head of Government agreed that, in the absence of an assessed contribution, they would themselves voluntarily pay the contribution that they would have paid under a system of assessed contributions. The right hon. Gentleman asked about President Yeltsin’s relationship with Serbia. President Yeltsin has repeatedly put pressure on President Milosevic; he did so most recently when I telephoned him with Chancellor Kohl from Germany when the present difficulties began. He reassured us yet again that he would continue to do so–although I think that the degree of pressure subsequently exerted by President Milosevic on Karadzic is a different matter, over which the Russian leader feels that he has less direct control. The chairman’s statement made clear the feelings of the G7 about Chechnya, the need for a political solution and the need to ensure proper standards in dealing with the conflict. President Yeltsin knows from what we have said on this and other occasions that we do not believe that it was handled in the most appropriate fashion. As for finance, we would have preferred an outright sale of gold by the IMF to help to deal with the problems of the very poor nations. The intention, however, was never to sell the gold and use the proceeds, but to sell the gold, maintain the proceeds and use the interest to alleviate the debt of the poorest. I think that that can broadly be met by the pledge, although I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view that the pledge is second best: we would have preferred the outright sale of gold, and we shall continue to press for it to assist those very poor nations.

    I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support on the IMF questions and agree that doubling the general arrangement to borrow is sensible, but that the other reforms need to be put in place. That point has been securely made. I also agree about the co-operation that is necessary to deal, in terms of IMF surveillance, with countries that are running into economic difficulties.

    I now refer to speculative flows. Everyone is concerned about an element of speculation, although sometimes people confuse speculation, which does exist, with significant movements of large pension funds from one country to another. Those responsible for pension funds are sometimes under a statutory requirement to move funds if that is right and is thought to be in the interests of their pension holders. There is undoubtedly some speculation. The problem in dealing with it is that even the sum total of foreign exchange reserves of the world’s seven largest industrial countries, whose representatives were seated around that table, would probably be less than the flow of foreign exchange through the New York exchanges on a single day. The reality is that we are no longer in the circumstances that we may have been in 15 or 20 years ago to deal with open market operations on speculation. Frankly, it is no longer true and no one should harbour the belief that it can be tackled in that fashion because the market is now much too big for the problem to be dealt with in that way. We looked at how best to deal with it and reached the unsurprising but, I think, sensible conclusion that the only way to deal with it is for countries not to place themselves in that position. They will not do that if they follow sensible economic policies, so that their currencies are not likely to become subject to speculation. I think that that was universally agreed around the table.

    There are areas in which there can be central bank co-operation, but we felt that they were very much on the margins of what could be achieved and that those achievements cannot be central because the market is too big. On the environment and nuclear power, we welcomed the decommissioning of Chernobyl. I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the communique is sanguine on the eastern bloc problems. I do not think that that was the view of those who were present. Certainly, Chernobyl has caused great trouble, but there is a large number of unsafe nuclear establishments across eastern Europe. They have not become Chernobyls and we hope and pray that they never will, but judged by the safety standards that we wish, they are not safe. That is one of the reasons for not only the financial assistance that has previously been offered but the decision to hold a conference on civil nuclear safety in Russia in the first half of next year. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a date on the chemical weapons convention, but I can tell him that we shall proceed to ratification as soon as we can. I am grateful to him for his support for the condemnation of Iran’s fatwa on Salman Rushdie. On jobs, we agree about greater investment in the right sort of skills. We were looking at skills and education expenditure right across the board. In our view, it is a matter not just of more spending but of how existing resources were being used.

    On jobs, we supported what was said by the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, which made the position clear on the policies that it supported. The OECD also highlighted policies that it felt cost jobs. They included: high non-wage costs, artificial training levies and high minimum wages–all of which will be familiar to the right hon. Gentleman.

    Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham): My right hon. Friend said that the United States sanctioned the United Nations rapid reaction force, but is not prepared to pay for it. Is there some prospect of that being reversed, and does he agree that if it is not, there will be an unacceptable burden on ourselves and the French? Would reform of the IMF mean that we could avoid the problems that occurred when Mexico was bailed out by the United States and by the International Monetary Fund without, I understand, any consultations with those, including ourselves, who subscribe to the IMF?

    The Prime Minister: In response to my right hon. Friend’s first point, I hope very much that the President will be able to find a way of meeting what would otherwise be the assessed United Nations contribution of the United States. Whether the President will be able to change the present opposition by Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich is not a matter that I can judge from here. I am in no doubt about the President’s willingness to do that or to find some other way to meet that cost. If not, it will, of course, have to be met either by France and Britain or by a voluntary settlement from other members of the G8 and other United Nations members. That also is a possibility; both possibilities exist.

    One impetus for the reform of the IMF was, of course, the lack of proper surveillance that predated the problems with Mexico. The difficulties in Mexico should have been spotted earlier by the IMF, but they were not. The problems created a great deal of currency turbulence in central Europe and also played a material part in the rising level of the deutschmark against other European currencies. It is precisely for that reason–among others, but certainly for that reason–that we are looking at reform of the institutions.

    Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil): I welcome the Government’s proposals for the limited sale of gold to relieve the debt burden on third-world countries. I am sorry that they did not receive the full support that they deserved. May I assure the Prime Minister that if the Government continue to press those proposals, he will, I suspect, have the full support of all Opposition Members?

    On currency speculation, the Prime Minister described very accurately both the scale of the problem and its danger. Have the Government given any thought to the proposals, which have been very well worked out over a number of years, that are being put forward by, among others, Professor Tobin for an international scheme for a low level of taxation of speculators in the spot markets in currency? Many believe that that would have a stabilising effect and it is well within the scope of the international institutions’ power. On Bosnia, the Prime Minister will no doubt understand why the very disappointing decision of the Americans not to fund the rapid reaction force at the moment will be regarded by many as yet another example in the long chapter of disorganisation, disarray and disunity for which the UN, the Bosnians and our troops on the ground have paid such a price in the past. I would ask the Prime Minister one specific question. On Saturday, he said that, if the UN was forced to withdraw, the result would be a massacre. I believe that that calculation is correct. Does it not follow that if, against our will, the UN is forced to withdraw from Bosnia, it would be inconceivable to leave the Bosnian Government without the means of their own defence?

    The Prime Minister: Again, let me take the right hon. Gentleman’s points in order. On gold, yes, we shall continue to press and I shall be happy to have the right hon. Gentleman’s support and that of other hon. Members. It is the right way forward. Pledging the gold will certainly make an improvement, but we think that outright sales of gold would have been better.

    On speculation, we did not specifically refer to the Tobin proposals, but we did discuss matters such as the imposition of taxes and exchange controls. However, we agreed without dissent that either the reimposition of exchange controls or new taxes on financial transactions would be counterproductive. We did consider those proposals, but there was unanimous agreement among the G7 that that was not the direction in which we wished to go.

    On Bosnia, I think that the first half of the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks was inaccurate, in the sense that the responsibility for the fact that the United States is unprepared to contribute lies not with the United Nations, the Bosnians or the American Administration, but with Congress itself. I very much hope that that will be able to be corrected. As I indicated to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) a moment ago, we must wait and see whether that is the case. I did say that, if the United Nations protection force were forced to withdraw, I feared that one of the outcomes would be a massacre. That is a position that I have held to for a long time; it is why I remain rigorously opposed to the withdrawal of the United Nations protection forces unless and until it becomes transparently clear that it is no longer safe or prudent for us to leave our troops there. So I very much wish them to remain. Were the United Nations protection force to leave, I think that it is very likely that the arms embargo would be lifted.

    Several hon. Members rose —

    Madam Speaker: Order. A number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to question the Prime Minister. I caution the House that now that we have heard from the two major Opposition parties, I am seeking one question each from Back Benchers to the Prime Minister; otherwise, there will be great disappointment. There may be disappointment in any event, but this is not a debate. It is one question to the Prime Minister, who, I am sure, will give a brisk answer.

    Mr. David Shaw (Dover): My right hon. Friend will have met President Chirac at the conference, someone who has suffered a number of political disappointments in his political life, but who won through in the end. Perhaps my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to talk to President Chirac about reports last week that he criticised our overseas aid budget. Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to point out to him that Britain not only spends some £3 billion a year on overseas aid, but puts £3 billion into Europe, whereas France gets about £3 billion from Europe? Should–

    Madam Speaker: Thank you. I meant it.

    The Prime Minister: I did not spend any time discussing overseas aid with President Chirac. We had the opportunity to discuss that the week before, so we did not do so this weekend. I think that President Chirac knows and accepts that we have a very high-quality aid programme.

    Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): Will the Prime Minister tell the House what representations were made to him about the decision to allow the Brent Spar oil rig to be ditched in the sea and what representations he and others made to the French about the resumption of nuclear testing, both of which run absolutely counter to the bland and meaningless words used in the communique about the environment?

    The Prime Minister: I understand that many people seem deeply upset about the decision to dispose of Brent Spar in deep water. I believe that it is the right way to dispose of it. It will be disposed of in the Atlantic, in 6,000 ft of water. It is 150 yd tall and 30 yd wide, and the proposition that it could have been taken inshore to be disposed of is incredible. Shell has my full support to dispose of it in deep water. I made that clear to people in the discussions that I had over the weekend.

    Sir Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South): When my right hon. Friend and his colleagues made their understandable calls on Saturday for a cessation of hostilities in Bosnia, did they recognise the fact that any sovereign state has the right to defend its own capital city?

    The Prime Minister: I think that that point was well understood, but I repeat that I do not believe that the matter is ever going to be solved on the battlefield in any remotely satisfactory way. That is why I believe that we must do all we can, as we have over the past three years, to try to seek a negotiated political settlement. It is bitterly disappointing that, time after time, one group or the other–it has not been one group alone– has stood in the way of a settlement when it looked as if we could get to serious talks. All the main groups have stood in the way of that at some stage and, I believe, for different reasons. However, the sooner that every group realises that if it seeks to win on the battlefield it will be an international pariah for years, the better; the sooner other groups realise that the United States is not going to enter the war on the ground on one side, the better; and the sooner those two points are recognised by the different groups, the sooner we might get to some political negotiations that would realise a satisfactory settlement.

    Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley): Given the vulnerability of modern society to terrorism and the certainty that terrorism will seek to dominate democracy in the next century, will the Prime Minister continue the good work that he did last week and strongly press his colleagues–the leaders of the other Governments–to arrange and establish workable and effective structures to co-operate against terrorism? Will he warn the other leaders that it would be completely futile if they were to make any concessions to terrorists, which would merely whet their appetite?

    The Prime Minister: I share the right hon. Gentleman’s views. We agreed to share information on major terrorist incidents and to strengthen co-operation in all aspects of counter-terrorism, including the research and development of methods to prevent and to deal with terrorist attacks. In our discussions, we attached special importance to measures to impede the ability of terrorist organisations to raise funds, without which, of course, they cannot purchase the weapons that they use against innocent citizenry. In order to carry matters forward, we asked a terrorism expert group to report on specific measures to deter, prevent and investigate terrorist acts, and we shall jointly consider that report when it is completed.

    Sir Cranley Onslow (Woking): When my right hon. Friend says–and it is welcome news–that there are to be measures to improve international co-operation against terrorism, may I take it that that extends to crime in general and not just to terrorism in particular? If there is to be a better system and one that is more effective and secure than Interpol, will he tell us any more about how it is to be developed and who is to pay for it?

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that to my right hon. Friend. There are some further matters directly related to crime, again to strengthen the exchange of information and co-operation and to provide assistance to other nations in areas where drug-related crime, for example, may find its roots. We are also seeking to co-operate, to stop criminals escaping justice by crossing borders–another matter that is long overdue, where more decisions are yet necessary and where discussions will take place to ensure that they are taken. We should also like to encourage all Governments to adhere to the recommendations of the financial action task force to prevent money laundering. Clearly, money laundering takes place on a massive scale in different parts of the world. Often it is money laundering not just by individual criminals, but by organised, large-scale criminal groups in different parts of the world. We have established a group of senior experts to consider critically existing arrangements for co-operation and to report back to the next summit.

    Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): Returning to nuclear matters, the Prime Minister touched on the business of nuclear safety at Chernobyl and elsewhere, but he made no mention of the French decision to resume nuclear testing in the Pacific. In the context of the advanced stage of the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations, and taking account of the justifiable anger in New Zealand, Australia and other Pacific countries, what representations did the Prime Minister make to the French President and, if so, with what effect?

    The Prime Minister: The question of French nuclear testing was not discussed bilaterally or in the discussions among the G7 or G8 at all. [Hon. Members:– “Why not?”] It was not discussed at all at the economic summit. The important international objective now is the early agreement of the comprehensive test ban treaty, and we all confirmed our commitment to that. The decision on the resumption of French nuclear testing is a matter for the French Government and they have taken that decision. The French have said that there would be a short series of tests, following which they proposed to adhere to the comprehensive test ban treaty. That is their position. It has been established and we accept it.

    Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud): When discussing economic affairs, did my right hon. Friend and other leaders discuss the position in socialist Spain, which was recently obliged to increase its interest rates by 0.75 per cent. to meet convergence criteria–and that despite a 24 per cent. unemployment rate? Does not that show my right hon. Friend’s wisdom in maintaining our opt-out from a single currency?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the wisdom of maintaining the opt-out. [Hon. Members:– “What a surprise.”] I say to Opposition Members that it is no surprise that I agree with my hon. Friend on that particular opt-out, as I negotiated that particular opt-out and it would be extremely surprising if I did not agree with it. I must say to my hon. Friend, however, that, although it would have been tempting, we did not discuss the particular matter to which he referred in the first half of his question.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): How on earth can the Prime Minister come to the House of Commons and try to give the impression that he can resolve the problems on the world stage when he cannot sort out all the conflicting groups in his own party?

    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that his ingenuity knows no bounds, and that its irrelevance to the subject under discussion knows no bounds, either.

    Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale): Leaving aside Bosnia, is the Prime Minister aware that there will be broad support for the agreement to try to find fairer ways of financing the overall budget of the United Nations? However, was there broad agreement among all the Heads of Government, including the Americans, that, given all the problems that we have in the world, the recent decisions by the United States Congress to cut United States contributions to the UN are both deplorable and, as the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office told the House the other day, probably illegal?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, we have discussed that matter. I share the view expressed on the subject by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State just a few days ago. It is necessary, though, for us to reform the system of payments to the United Nations generally. The House will be interested to know that if the system is based on gross national product, it will not make any material difference to the British contribution. It would certainly reduce the American contribution and increase the contributions from Japan and Germany. There would be other changes as well, to reflect changing patterns of GNP over the years. For this country, the change would be marginal.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): Will the Prime Minister confirm that the issue of Brent Spar was raised publicly as well as privately at the summit? Will he advise the House which, if any, other leaders agreed with the decision taken by Shell and the United Kingdom Government in favour of such a form of disposal? Will he advise us whether there is a financial interest for the Government, because some of the costs of disposal at sea can be offset against petroleum revenue tax? The costs cannot be offset if there is full disposal on land, which could actually create jobs and has been shown in the Smit report to be much cheaper.

    The Prime Minister: The question of Brent Spar was not discussed among the G7 leaders. Chancellor Kohl and I spoke bilaterally about Brent Spar; he expressed one view and I expressed another. There were no public statements about the matter other than in response to questions asked of us by journalists. There were no public discussions.

    On the disposal of Brent Spar, I repeat the point that I made a moment or so ago. The right environmental way in which to dispose of Brent Spar is to drop it into 6,000 ft of water in the Atlantic. The hon. Lady seems to think that the platform should be taken ashore. If she thought that it was to be taken ashore in Scotland, she would think differently.

    Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey): On the subject of global finance, may I put it to my right hon. Friend that the most immediate problem is not speculation, as stated by the leaders of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, but the continuing need of many Japanese institutions to repatriate, for purely commercial reasons, increasing quantities of their vast holdings of overseas assets, much of them held in liquid form? If that repatriation continues at the rate of recent weeks and months, it will have the same impact on the world economy as did the oil hike of 1973- 74. It could plunge the whole world, including this country, into another slump. Did the leaders of the G7 give any thought to international co-operation to deal with this problem of a recycling kind?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches on a problem of real severity as we look to the months that lie immediately ahead. There was some discussion of the problem at the G7 and there was some discussion about the desirability of increased demand within Japan itself. Those points were carefully noted by the Japanese Prime Minister.

    Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles): On the matter of Brent Spar, does the Prime Minister acknowledge that, once again, the reputation of the United Kingdom as the dirty man of Europe has been confirmed? Will he confirm that it is technically possible to recycle Brent Spar on land, which would create more jobs, and that the only obstacle is that it would be more expensive for Shell?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I repeat that Brent Spar was not a subject of discussion at the G7 summit. The deep sea disposal of Brent Spar, first, is consistent with our international commitments, secondly, has been endorsed by the overwhelming majority of independent expert opinion received by the Government, thirdly, has received all the necessary approvals and consents and, fourthly, is the best practicable environmental option available to us. The hon. Gentleman would be wise to consider that. In the context of the Government’s general position on the environment, this country is, in many ways, far from fitting the hon. Gentleman’s categorisation, which I do not recognise and which I think he should be ashamed of having uttered. He should be ashamed of having uttered it– [Hon. Members:– “Why?”] Because it is untrue. Not only is it untrue, but it is another illustration of the way in which Opposition Members always speak as ill as they can of this country and as well as they can of other countries.

    The hon. Gentleman should look at the environmental record of other countries before criticising this country for its environmental record. Not many other countries are, like us, on target to exceed the Rio commitments on carbon dioxide emissions; we are. Not many other countries are contributing £90 million to the global environmental facility; we are. Not many other countries have made the contributions that we have to things such as the biodiversity convention. It would be very nice if, just for once, Opposition Members spoke well of this country and not ill.

    Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is in fact a matter of some pride for him to represent the economy in Europe that is leading Europe out of recession? Will he confirm that there was absolutely no interest in national minimum wages and increasing employers’ costs, demonstrating that the ideas of the Leader of the Opposition are as irrelevant to the rest of the world as they are to the future of this country?

    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that for my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that this country was well ahead in terms of growth as we emerged out of the recession and that it still leads the rest of Europe in its growth, low inflation rate and fall in unemployment. On measures for further job stimulation, the G7 leaders endorsed the OECD report, which supported in terms the policies that we have been following and condemned in terms those advocated by the Opposition.

    Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): As regards Brent Spar, which was raised by Chancellor Kohl in bilateral discussions, what contribution does Shell UK make to the Conservative party? If the Prime Minister does not like the question, why does he not publish the figures of funding for the Conservative party?

    The Prime Minister: I repeat that Brent Spar was not a subject of the conference. [Hon. Members:– “How much?”] I have no idea whether Shell contributes. The hon. Gentleman may not know it, but the responsibility for the Conservative party’s finances does not lie with the Prime Minister if he is a Conservative. It lies with the party machine itself and not with me. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I do not know whether Shell contributes. The reality is that, having sought advice on the best environmental method by which to dispose of Brent Spar, we have taken that advice.

    Mr. Winston Churchill (Davyhulme): Will my right hon. Friend convey to the President of the United States the regret of this House that the United States Congress, so free in giving its advice on Bosnia to those of us whose countries have for many years had forces serving in difficulty and danger in the Balkans, has thus far appeared unwilling to pay its contribution to the funding of the rapid reaction force?

    The Prime Minister: I can say to my hon. Friend that I have already done so. I believe that the President regrets it as well.

    Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): On jobs, did the Prime Minister discuss with Chancellor Kohl the fact that the rate of decline of unemployment in Germany is now four or five times that in England? In other words, for every job that we are creating, the Germans are creating four under a partnership economy committed to the social charter.

    The Prime Minister: I must say that the hon. Gentleman never ceases to amaze me with the nonsense that he talks. That is absolute rubbish from top to bottom. The reality is– [Interruption.] I am sorry that he does not like the reality. We have to live in the real world. He can live in his fantasy world if he likes. The reality is that this country has reduced unemployment by more than any other country in Europe. If he cares to look at the particular– [Interruption.] If he looks not just at Christian Democrat countries but at those socialist countries in Europe, he will see unemployment very much higher in those socialist countries, as it would be in Britain if the sort of policies that they have followed were followed here.

    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford): Does my right hon. Friend agree that he went to the conference in a remarkably strong position, despite what the Opposition have said? He was the leader of a country with one of the lowest levels of unemployment, the lowest interest rates and lowest inflation. Does he not therefore agree that, despite what the Opposition say, the reality is that speculation takes place on economies that are unsound, which is exactly what would happen were the Opposition to get into power?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right about the soundness of our economic recovery and the security of our economic recovery. That was well recognised by our partners at the summit.

    Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): May I say that I can scarcely remember a day when such an important statement from the Prime Minister was greeted by so many empty Benches behind him? It must worry him as much as it intrigues us. To what extent did the questions that he had to face in Halifax about divisions in his party and the impending leadership challenge —

    Madam Speaker: Order. That is totally irrelevant to the Prime Minister’s statement. If the hon. Member has a question relating to the statement, of course he should put it. It must relate to the statement.

    Mr. Banks: I was merely asking to what extent the questions that the right hon. Gentleman faced in Halifax distracted him from important considerations in Halifax.

    The Prime Minister: To no extent whatever.

    Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): Did my right hon. Friend notice the odd way in which the social costs of employment were jumped over by the Leader of the Opposition in his questions? Does my right hon. Friend think that our policies will be adopted by the right hon. Gentleman or that he was merely embarrassed?

    The Prime Minister: I am not sure. Far be it from me to divine what was in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition. That is not a matter for me. I did notice that he did not touch on those particular points, but the right hon. Gentleman and I know that we have clear differences on the matter and that they are likely to continue in the future.

    Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey): The Prime Minister’s answer on the failure of the summit to do anything about some of the difficulties of exchange rate instability assumed that the global financial markets were rational. Does the Prime Minister agree that global financial markets can be as irrational as the Conservative party when it contemplates leadership elections and stalking horses?

    The Prime Minister: What is irrational in the hon. Lady’s question is the belief that exchange rate stability can be imposed when the flows over the New York exchange in a day probably equal the sum total of the foreign exchange reserves of all the seven countries that were at the summit. That is completely irrational, to the point of being economically dotty. The only way in which people will get exchange rate stability is by having underlying economic stability. That was accepted by all the seven Heads of Government who sat round the table at the G7 summit.

    If the hon. Lady is indicating to me that it is now Labour party policy to try in some artificial way to sustain exchange rates with open market operations, I look forward at long last to a statement on policy from the shadow Chancellor on that issue, if on none other. He seems to have no policy on most issues. If he is being pressed by his Back Benchers on that issue, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will press him on whether that is indeed the principal Opposition party’s policy.

    Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): To what extent does my right hon. Friend feel that the Group of Seven summit clarified the objectives to be given to the allied rapid reaction force? When he says that the force will not be there in order to fight, how will it be able to fulfil its mission of protecting the protection force of the United Nations if it is not permitted to take offensive action if necessary? Is the withdrawal of UNPROFOR from the weapons holding sites a precursor to a more passive role? Did Mr. Chretien feel that Canada, which has troops in the theatre, ought to be represented on the contact group? Did the Dutch feel that they should be represented?

    The Prime Minister: The latter point was not raised by Prime Minister Chretien either in the G7 or in the bilateral meeting that I had with him. If he holds that view, it is not a matter that he raised with me. Certainly, the proposals do not indicate a more passive role for the United Nations protection forces. I was seeking to tell the House that they will not unilaterally fight aggressively, but of course, under the rules of engagement, they have the authority to fight in defence or in protection of other United Nations protection forces that are there. They will certainly exercise that right if it proves to be necessary.

    Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): Was there any discussion at Halifax about the need to stop the sale of arms to oppressive regimes, particularly to those countries against which there are United Nations sanctions? If there was, was the Prime Minister embarrassed?

    The Prime Minister: There was a discussion on collaboration with Iran on nuclear matters. That was the subject of a discussion. If the hon. Gentleman cares to see the chairman’s statement, which has been deposited in the Library, he will see that it calls “on all States to avoid any collaboration with Iran which might contribute to the acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability.” The G7 partners have already adopted restrictive practices on nuclear co-operation with Iran.

    Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham): My right hon. Friend referred to the discussion on the brutal war in Chechnya and the hostage taking in Russia. Whatever decision the Russians may feel they have to take, will my right hon. Friend make it plain that this country is not likely to change its policy when people make menaces of that kind?

    The Prime Minister: That point is clear and it was made clear again.

    Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside): The right hon. Gentleman began his statement by referring to the important subject of unemployment. Has he the courage to tell the House how many people are unemployed in the United Kingdom?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman goes to the Library, he will see the figures that are published monthly, which are calculated on more than one basis. At present, that figure stands at just over 2.3 million, and he will find that that is so according to more than one basis. The figure was 2.9 million some time ago. If the hon. Gentleman looks across the European Union, he will see that, whereas the average unemployment rate is around 11 per cent., it is 8.3 per cent. here. In some large countries, the unemployment rate is getting on for 13 per cent.–for example, the rate stands at just over 20 per cent. in Spain. The only European Union country with a lower unemployment rate than us is, I think, Holland.

    Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest): When considering the long-term reform of the United Nations institutions, did my right hon. Friend stress the importance of maintaining Britain’s seat on the Security Council? Does he agree that, if there were to be a European Community seat, as proposed by the Labour party, Britain’s seat would be gravely threatened?

    The Prime Minister: In due course, the membership of the permanent five on the Security Council will be reformed, which I am sure is right. I have no doubt that that reform will lead to the enlargement of the five, to include a larger number of nations on the Security Council. I doubt that that will be a speedy process, because, although there is rapidly building consensus in favour of two nations, other nations will also want to be included. It will therefore take some time before a decision is reached. I see no threat whatsoever for the United Kingdom’s place on the Security Council either now or in the future. I see no probability whatsoever that the European Union would be collectively represented. It is currently represented by France, Germany and the United Kingdom. It would not be in the tradition of the Security Council for it to have a member that did not represent a nation state.

    Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): On Bosnia, is there not something particularly despicable about the manner in which the Serbs have deliberately targeted civilians–for example, by murdering those who were trying to get water at the weekend? That probably occurred at the same time as the summit was taking place or just ending. Does not such an act amount to outright terrorism?

    The Prime Minister: Many of the actions that we have seen in Bosnia in the past few years have been, as the hon. Gentleman said, despicable. Many have been aimed at innocent civilians or aimed carelessly, in a manner in which innocent civilians have been as likely to be killed or maimed as soldiers fighting in the opposite camp. I therefore share the hon. Gentleman’s view, but I would add only that the appalling behaviour of the Serbs has from time to time been matched by the other parties as well.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Halifax – 17 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Halifax, held on Saturday 17th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me, before I talk about the conference, express my thanks to the Prime Minister for the organisation of the conference, but perhaps even more than that, to the people of Halifax who have been extraordinarily warm in their reception right the way through this G7. I have attended quite a number of G7s now, I cannot recall one where people were so friendly. Perhaps in a smaller town than we sometimes visit, the sight of limousines clocking up the road for ordinary people going around their work is not quite so frustrating, but whatever the reason, the reception here has been extraordinarily warm. I felt that and I think all my colleagues did as well. And I would like to express my thanks to the people of Halifax for that.

    In the summit over the last day or so, we have had the opportunity of looking at some long term problems and also addressing some of the problems that lie immediately ahead of us. A number of decisions have been taken, you will have seen the communiques no doubt but I will elaborate them for you briefly.

    We agreed last year that we would have a look, on this occasion, at the international institutions and come forward with some proposals for their reform. We cannot impose that reform of course, we can make suggestions, particularly as far as the United Nations and the IFIs are concerned, and we have honoured that commitment. I hope we will now be able to take those suggestions forward.

    In particular we have agreed 12 proposals to strengthen the effectiveness of the international financial institutions. I have no intention of running through all of them but I think the determination to improve IMF surveillance on the back of the difficulties that one saw in Mexico recently is self-evidently of importance and so is handling financial crises generally.

    We have also put forward a number of proposals for strengthening the United Nations and they focus essentially on eliminating duplication, eliminating waste, increasing efficiency, as well as reviewing the method of contributions to the United Nations to put its finances on a sounder basis for the 1990s and the turn of the century.

    We will now carry this forward with our personal representatives and try and persuade the rest of the United Nations membership of the merits of our approach. I stress that because this is emphatically not something that the G7 either could, or should, seek to impose upon the United Nations and we will be in the business of persuading people that it is right to proceed with these reforms.

    We have also looked, yet again, at the nature of the G7 itself. Over the last few years we have managed to cut down on much of the pomp and ceremony that has attended these meetings. A great deal of the fat was taken away at Naples last year and Prime Minister Chretien has taken that process of reform towards making it a better structured working meeting a good deal further this year. I congratulate him on that and I look forward to Jacques Chirac taking it even further next year. We may not get there immediately, but I think the goal is to move much more towards the sort of original intent of these summits, a relatively small gathering in which matters can be discussed both formally and informally and without the inevitable necessity for the communiques that I know so many people have been so interested in in the last couple of days.

    We have also given quite a strong push to liberalising world trade. The Uruguay Round was very welcome, it carried matters a good deal forward but it by no means left us with a liberal world trading system. There is a great deal more to be done, a great deal of unfinished business as well as new areas to be tackled. Amongst the new areas of course, non-tariff barriers of various kinds, investment, government procurement and a range of related matters.

    I think that is important not just because I support free trade, but if one is concerned about the position of many of the less well off, some of the downright poor nations of the world, the greater the extent that the world’s markets are open to their products, the greater I think they will begin to have a capacity to deal with some of the appalling problems that many of them face.

    Allied to that, we have also taken some further steps to look at how we might relieve the debt of the very poorest countries, a matter that the United Kingdom has been leading really for the last 8 or 9 years as a matter of extreme importance.

    I hope as a result of the discussions we have had that we will soon be in the position where the IMF will be prepared to pledge some of its gold, and eventually perhaps even gold sales, to assist some of the very poorest countries.

    We also agreed that we would repeat the Detroit Job Summit, not in Detroit but in France at some date yet to be specified but probably in the first half of next year. The strategy and purpose of that is as it was before. There was a welcome reaffirmation again that the way to create jobs was by having a more flexible labour market, up-grading skills, deregulation. And no-one was talking of large artificial short-term expenditure packages that put a burden on the budget, create jobs in the short term and probably lead to inflation and more difficulties in the medium and longer term.

    Much of the agenda in the early part of this conference, unsurprising to some of us that it turned out this way, was that much of the agenda was seized by events in Bosnia. I don’t think there is any doubt that events there have taken a turn for the worst over the last few days. There has also been some confusion publicly over the role and purpose of the Rapid Reaction Force. Let me say firstly that I am delighted that the Rapid Reaction Force got unanimous support from our partners here in Halifax, unanimous and very warm support from all our partners in Halifax.

    Let me make a couple of things clear again about the Rapid Reaction Force. The purpose of it is essentially twofold: firstly to enable the protection forces to carry out their existing mandate more effectively; and secondly to improve the protection forces’ ability to protect themselves whenever and wherever that may be necessary. The force will be part of the United Nations protection forces and it will be under United Nations command, and that means the French General, General Janvier, and Rupert Smith, the British General, commanding there.

    On Friday morning, early in the morning, the Security Council passed resolution 998 which gave the formal authority that was necessary to the despatch of the Rapid Reaction Force to Bosnia. Because of the difficulties that the American President has with the Republican leadership in Congress, the details of the question of paying for the force, reluctantly it has been necessary to put that to one side for the time being. It will need to be sorted out quickly, and I believe it will be, and our American friends are well aware of this. When I saw President Clinton yesterday he acknowledged the problems that he faces with Congress at present, but he reiterated the pledge that he had made at dinner on Thursday night that the United States would take its share of the cost. That is also the view of all the other Heads of Government gathered here, that their countries also would take their share of the cost.

    That is by no means an exhaustive account of the issues we have tackled, we made a considerable amount of progress on the environment, in looking at international crime and terrorism. It was extremely helpful to have Boris Yeltsin arrive last evening for discussions over dinner and more discussions this morning, and I think that underlines yet again the importance of the Russian political contribution which I hope and expect will be further developed in the G7 next year. We had a good discussion of Chechnya and of what can be done to promote a peaceful solution there.

    We also agreed, following President Yeltsin’s arrival, that we would have a summit in Moscow, on a date yet to be determined but in the first half of next year, to discuss various aspects of nuclear safety. There is a big agenda there. It is I think entirely appropriate for the members of the G8 to get together, possibly with others as well, still to be determined, in order to discuss what really is a very wide agenda. And we will be putting some experts together to look in detail at the matters we might productively discuss in Moscow next year.

    And President Yeltsin also took the opportunity to advise us of the up-to-date position in the south of Russia with the difficulties they face at the moment with the hostages. This is a frightful tragedy already and potentially, unless we are fortunate, the most serious terrorist incident that anybody will be able to remember. So there was a great deal of sympathy for the hostages there and for the dreadful situation and the predicament that President Yeltsin found himself in.

    I will not expand on these points any further at the moment but I will endeavour to take questions. If we could deal with questions for some time on the conference I think that would be helpful, there may be one or two others, we will take those later, but let us deal with matters to do with the conference.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Mark Pinder, AFX News):

    Prime Minister, given your push to liberalise world trade, how would you deal with criticism that this multilateral summit has been mostly silent on the US unilateral threat of sanctions against Japan?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are in favour of multilateralism rather than bilateralism, and that is known both to the United States and it is known to Japan. But at the moment both Japan and the United States are inhibited in discussing that matter with others because they are reaching towards their own conclusion to this, I think everybody accepted that and honoured the fact that that was the case. But the point was made that we believe in multilateral solutions to world trading problems and not bilateral solutions, and I think that was acknowledged and understood.

    QUESTION (David Boyle, New Economics Magazine):

    President Chirac described currency speculation yesterday as the Aids of the world economy, if that is the way he feels why does the summit fail to discuss the … levy at all and why does it simply call for the encouragement of the removal of capital market restrictions further?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    President Chirac expressed a view, he also agreed to the summit communique, we discussed all that. I think many people have a distaste for currency speculation. But of course we have to look at what in reality it is practical to do. If you were to take the sum total of all the foreign exchange reserved of all the G7 nations gathered around the table, you would find they would be but a portion of the movement over the New York exchanges on a daily basis. So clearly artificial means to curb currency speculation, I think from time to time at the fringes there are certain things one can do, I won’t say there is nothing that can be done, but I think the work that can be done in that fashion is very much on the margins of events. What really we were concentrating on rather more than that was the determination to try and remove the causes that generated currency instability, and that of course is a theme that I think the G7 have been following for some considerable time.

    QUESTION (Robert Chope, FT):

    Have you been disappointed by the reaction to the gold sales proposal which now appears to have been pushed further back and we are left with pledging as an alternative, do you think that is a practical alternative that would be as effective?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it will be effective, yes. Not everyone is undilutedly keen even to mention the wicked word gold in this context, but since the IMF has no other resources, it is gold we are talking about. From my point of view it doesn’t really matter whether it is pledged in order to raise resources or whether it is sold. The original proposition, one of the propositions for selling the gold, was simply to raise the capital, to maintain the capital of course but to use the interest on the capital. I think that can be done the same way in terms of pledging. What matters is the end product for the countries who will receive assistance and I am confident as a result of the discussions we have had that we will make progress on that.

    QUESTION (Nicholas Witchell, BBC):

    There is no reference to Chechnya in the Chairman’s statement, is that out of deference to Mr Yeltsin’s presence here? And on Bosnia, has Mr Yeltsin produced some new ideas on settling the conflict there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there are any new ideas on settling the conflict there. Whenever necessary, President Yeltsin has used his influence with Belgrade and encouraged Belgrade to use their influence with Parle. That has been the case in the past and he reiterated this morning that he would do that whenever it was necessary. And of course there has been a very constructive part played in the Contact Group by Andrei Kozyrev and very close relationships with the Russians. Indeed if you go back just a few years, it would have been almost inconceivable to imagine the degree of political cooperation that has taken place between the Western nations and Russia over Bosnia, and that will continue. But neither President Yeltsin, nor frankly, Nicholas, anyone else, has a simple and ready made off the shelf solution to the nightmare of Bosnia at present.

    Chechnya was not included, you are quite right, I am sure people will be asked questions about that, it was not included. It was not a subject of great discussion. We asked what the present situation was. Most people had their mind pitched more immediately upon the problems of the hostages and I think that is probably the principal reason why there was no specific mention. Though I think you will find that the Chairman of the meeting will probably mention it, will no doubt by now have done so, in his press conference.

    QUESTION (Harold Freedman, IHT):

    On Chechnya we have heard that at dinner last night a number of G7 leaders, including yourself, delivered a fairly stern lecture to Mr Yeltsin saying that if he had done more talking and less military action then he would not find himself in the predicament he is in right now with the hostages. Could you comment on that, is that true? Secondly, from your talks with US and Japanese counterparts are you optimistic or pessimistic about a resolution of the US/Japanese car dispute?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know whether I would categorise it as a stern lecture. There was some discussion of the matter, that is certainly true, but stern lecture is not really in the nature of these rather intimate round table discussions and neither would it really be very productive. I think from time to time people seem inclined to read a stern lecture to my country, I don’t think I would respond very happily to that on these occasions and I don’t think it would be a very productive way for people to behave. And far be it for me to put thoughts in President Yeltsin’s mind, but I think he would probably react the same way. So discussion, yes; stern lecture, I don’t think I would have called it a stern lecture.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there was a general discussion, I don’t want to go into the details of precisely who said what at the meeting.

    On your second question, I very much hope they are going to be able to settle the problems with US/Japan, they certainly believe they are making progress but that was not a substantive matter for discussion at the dinner last night, there was a passing reference to it. There was discussion during the day yesterday on the subject of US/Japan, but reverting to the point I made earlier and the point that we believe these things should be settled on a multilateral rather than a bilateral basis, the feeling was that progress was being made, that special circumstances did apply, we were reliably informed, but our view was that multilateralism should generally prevail.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    If I could just pick up on your concern and the concern the Foreign Secretary has expressed about Bosnia and the upsurge in fighting around Sarajevo. There is a report in the Financial Times today that if there has to be a sort of enforced withdrawal of the peacekeeping forces there it would take another 20,000 British troops there to ensure that that happened. Is that a realistic estimate of your contingency plans?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to go into the contingency plans except to say we have contingency plans for every foreseeable circumstance, at least every foreseeable circumstance that we have envisaged. But I think when one comes to that numbers game you can almost pay your own money and take your own choice, it depends what set of difficulties you stand up against the likely withdrawal. Whatever you put into the assessment on one side would lead to a difference in numbers on the other side, but I am not going to confirm that figure.

    QUESTION (David Smith, Channel 4 News):

    Nuclear and the proposed summit in Moscow, was there any discussion this morning with President Yeltsin on the nuclear programme with Iran and any evidence that he is prepared to listen more than when President Clinton raised it with him recently in Moscow?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I should emphasise that we are talking of civil nuclear, in case anybody misunderstands that, we are talking about civil nuclear safety in terms of the conference next year. There was not substantive discussion about Iran, there was reference to it, most certainly, but it was really simply in the context of the matters that we might examine at the conference next year rather than a structured discussion on the particular Russian/Iranian situation.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    Can I add a point, that the Chairman’s statement does call on all states not to collaborate with Iran in any way which could help them acquire a nuclear weapons capability, and that is something of course the Russians agreed.

    QUESTION (New Economics Magazine):

    Considering that the appeasement of genocide in Bosnia is now threatening the whole post-European order, is it not strange that the statement this morning mentions a very strong determination of the G7 to enforce UN resolutions regarding Iraq and Libya but does not mention those regarding Bosnia, and also it mentions a very strong determination to make those accountable who were responsible for genocide in Rwanda and Burundi and mentions the international tribunal, but does not express a similar determination regarding those responsible in former Yugoslavia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t recognise the introduction to your statement as having a great deal of connection with reality as I understand it. I don’t recognise the point about appeasement in Bosnia. In terms before the United Nations protection forces went in, in the year before they went in, there was something in excess, I take the figures from memory so they may be mildly out but not much I think, something over 100,000 deaths in central Bosnia. In the year after the United Nations protection forces were there there were less than 5,000, I think less than 3,000. If by appeasement you mean the Western nations should themselves have declared war on one or both sides in Bosnia and gone in in order to keep a peace in that fashion, then I have to say to you that is not what has traditionally happened in terms of United Nations peacekeeping and neither, in the particular circumstances of Bosnia, would it be a practical proposition.

    Almost the first thing I did when the Bosnian crisis broke was to actually seek military advice from our own senior military advisers in London as to how many troops would be necessary in order to prevent the fighting that was then taking place in Bosnia. I know other Heads of Government took the same sort of judgment and sought the same sort of advice. And the answer, in order to keep the parties apart, was something in the region of 400,000 NATO troops. And not only would you need to put 400,000 NATO troops in in order to keep the combatants apart, you would need to keep them there to ensure that the combatants remained apart and when at some stage in the future you left them the combatants may well start again, such is the nature of the ancient feuds there, unless there is a political settlement. And it was very much in my mind that we had had peacekeeping troops keeping combatants apart in Cyprus for 29 years and I did not think the concept of what would clearly have to be a NATO force, there would be no other show in town remotely big enough to do it, undertaking that role was ever practical. Not only was it never practical, we think, militarily, it was never practical because no country was prepared to put troops in in that scale and on those numbers.

    As far as the crimes of people in Bosnia are concerned, I think the war crimes tribunal point has been mentioned on many occasions in the past. I don’t see any need for me to reiterate it today.

    As far as peacekeeping elsewhere is concerned, a number of the countries who contribute to Bosnia have peacekeeping troops in a large number of countries around the world, certainly that is true of the United Kingdom and it is certainly true of our hosts here in Canada who have a record in terms of peacekeeping in blue helmets that. I think is probably unmatched by anyone else.

    QUESTION (Jonathan Fried, ISN TV Canada):

    Prime Minister Chretien has been expressing concern that any small contribution by .Canada to the Rapid Reaction Force might not be a meaningful one. Would you agree?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You ask the question at an appropriate time because I have just been saying quite gratuitously what a remarkable international record Canada has had in terms of peacekeeping. I cannot traipse on whether the Canadian Cabinet feel it right to make a further contribution to the Rapid Reaction Force, but from what I have seen of Canadian troops in the past, they have always made a positive contribution but that is not to be taken as an indication that I am especially prodding for a further contribution for Canada. Their contribution to Bosnia has been a very honourable one and to many other parts of the world as well they have done their share and more on many occasions.

    QUESTION:

    Would you welcome even a small contribution?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We would welcome contributions from anywhere where they are professional soldiers, as they are from Canada. But I think one mustn’t ask too much of any individual nation state. Canada must make that decision, if Canada decides to send a small number I personally will be very pleased, I think they will be able to make the warm contribution that Canadian soldiers always do. If they decide against it, I don’t think that is a cause for criticism of Canada with its record in Bosnia now and in many other places both at the moment and in the past.

    QUESTION (Bill Keegan):

    The Group of 7 have been involved for some years now with the reform process in Russia, was there any indication in the discussions with President Yeltsin that the precipitous decline in output there had reached bottom and was there any kind of discussion of further financial help or rescheduling of debt?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were no further requests for financial help. As to whether the Russian economy has bottomed out, we did discuss the Russian economy and President Yeltsin said over dinner last night that he expected the economy to grow, very modestly perhaps, around 1 percent this year. The implication was that there was bottoming out. There is also no doubt I think in the Russian economy that many of the reforms have begun to take root. Anyone who went to Russia 15 years or 20 years ago and was familiar with Moscow then, and who was to go back to Moscow today, would see a very remarkable difference. Of course from the point of view of the reformers it is sometimes a good deal slower than they would wish, they would like more dramatic improvement. But that a free enterprise democratic system has put down fairly healthy roots in Russia, I am absolutely confident. It will be a long period, this reform process. Anyone who thinks they are going to wake up this time next year or the year after and find that reform has been wholly completed in Russia I suggest should emulate Rip Van Winkle and sleep a little longer because that certainly will not be the case. But that they are making progress is certain, difficult and painful. I doubt many people would have imagined the progress on public expenditure that Chernomyrdin has made, it has been a good deal better than many imagined. Inflation was at outrageous levels, it is still very very high, but it has come down quite remarkably. So I think there is progress and if President Yeltsin’s assessment that there may be growth in the Russian economy this year is right, then I think that is an extremely good sign.

    QUESTION (CNBC TV):

    To what degree was there tension or frustration at the table over the US not being able to commit troops to Bosnia and President Clinton not being able to fully guarantee US payment for its share for the troops in Bosnia; and also about the French nuclear testing, to what degree was there tension or frustration at the table?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe there was tension or frustration around the table. The French nuclear testing matter was not mentioned at all. And on the earlier point, I think the position was well understood and has been well understood for some time. As far as the payment is concerned, I think there was an acknowledgement that the President would wish to pay assessed contributions, indeed he has said so repeatedly over the last few days and I think practising politicians sitting around the table sometimes acknowledge that there are frustrations that inhibit them from doing what they would most wish to do. So I don’t think there was a special frustration. We look forward to the President finding a way through it.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky):

    Throughout this summit you have made it clear that in your view you have a clear policy agenda which you don’t intend to be deflected from by the Conservative Party, can I therefore ask you why you don’t actually go ahead now and seek an early leadership election so that you can clear the air and then carry on?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You have been reading your competitors’ newspapers, Adam. I have certainly said that I have set out a clear agenda, and when you say the Conservative Party you might perhaps say some members of the Conservative Party rather than speak in a generality. We have a system for electing the leader of the Conservative Party, but that system is in the hands of the Conservative Party, not in the hands of the leader of the Conservative Party. We have a system, it is there, if people choose to use that system, that is a matter for them and not me. Every member of the party accepts that that is the right way to proceed and I see no signs of anyone wishing to change that.

    QUESTION:

    You have spent the week here discussing the future of world institutions, there are stories at home that you are going to spend this weekend contemplating your own future as Party leader and Prime Minister. Is there any question of your contemplating stepping down?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you promise not to tell anyone, in the intimacy of this meeting I will tell you that I intend to spend my weekend in very deep contemplation over whether the United Kingdom will manage to win their rugby match in South Africa tomorrow. When I say the United Kingdom winning, we have had four teams there, we have one left – England – and it has a very tough battle against our friends from New Zealand and I very much look forward to seeing that game and I very much hope that the games lives up to the remarkable game against Australia last week. But if you wish to know what is on my mind at this moment, and over this weekend, it will be England’s performance and England’s fate against New Zealand.

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Halifax, held on Saturday 17th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me, before I talk about the conference, express my thanks to the Prime Minister for the organisation of the conference, but perhaps even more than that, to the people of Halifax who have been extraordinarily warm in their reception right the way through this G7. I have attended quite a number of G7s now, I cannot recall one where people were so friendly. Perhaps in a smaller town than we sometimes visit, the sight of limousines clocking up the road for ordinary people going around their work is not quite so frustrating, but whatever the reason, the reception here has been extraordinarily warm. I felt that and I think all my colleagues did as well. And I would like to express my thanks to the people of Halifax for that.

    In the summit over the last day or so, we have had the opportunity of looking at some long term problems and also addressing some of the problems that lie immediately ahead of us. A number of decisions have been taken, you will have seen the communiques no doubt but I will elaborate them for you briefly.

    We agreed last year that we would have a look, on this occasion, at the international institutions and come forward with some proposals for their reform. We cannot impose that reform of course, we can make suggestions, particularly as far as the United Nations and the IFIs are concerned, and we have honoured that commitment. I hope we will now be able to take those suggestions forward.

    In particular we have agreed 12 proposals to strengthen the effectiveness of the international financial institutions. I have no intention of running through all of them but I think the determination to improve IMF surveillance on the back of the difficulties that one saw in Mexico recently is self-evidently of importance and so is handling financial crises generally.

    We have also put forward a number of proposals for strengthening the United Nations and they focus essentially on eliminating duplication, eliminating waste, increasing efficiency, as well as reviewing the method of contributions to the United Nations to put its finances on a sounder basis for the 1990s and the turn of the century.

    We will now carry this forward with our personal representatives and try and persuade the rest of the United Nations membership of the merits of our approach. I stress that because this is emphatically not something that the G7 either could, or should, seek to impose upon the United Nations and we will be in the business of persuading people that it is right to proceed with these reforms.

    We have also looked, yet again, at the nature of the G7 itself. Over the last few years we have managed to cut down on much of the pomp and ceremony that has attended these meetings. A great deal of the fat was taken away at Naples last year and Prime Minister Chretien has taken that process of reform towards making it a better structured working meeting a good deal further this year. I congratulate him on that and I look forward to Jacques Chirac taking it even further next year. We may not get there immediately, but I think the goal is to move much more towards the sort of original intent of these summits, a relatively small gathering in which matters can be discussed both formally and informally and without the inevitable necessity for the communiques that I know so many people have been so interested in in the last couple of days.

    We have also given quite a strong push to liberalising world trade. The Uruguay Round was very welcome, it carried matters a good deal forward but it by no means left us with a liberal world trading system. There is a great deal more to be done, a great deal of unfinished business as well as new areas to be tackled. Amongst the new areas of course, non-tariff barriers of various kinds, investment, government procurement and a range of related matters.

    I think that is important not just because I support free trade, but if one is concerned about the position of many of the less well off, some of the downright poor nations of the world, the greater the extent that the world’s markets are open to their products, the greater I think they will begin to have a capacity to deal with some of the appalling problems that many of them face.

    Allied to that, we have also taken some further steps to look at how we might relieve the debt of the very poorest countries, a matter that the United Kingdom has been leading really for the last 8 or 9 years as a matter of extreme importance.

    I hope as a result of the discussions we have had that we will soon be in the position where the IMF will be prepared to pledge some of its gold, and eventually perhaps even gold sales, to assist some of the very poorest countries.

    We also agreed that we would repeat the Detroit Job Summit, not in Detroit but in France at some date yet to be specified but probably in the first half of next year. The strategy and purpose of that is as it was before. There was a welcome reaffirmation again that the way to create jobs was by having a more flexible labour market, up-grading skills, deregulation. And no-one was talking of large artificial short-term expenditure packages that put a burden on the budget, create jobs in the short term and probably lead to inflation and more difficulties in the medium and longer term.

    Much of the agenda in the early part of this conference, unsurprising to some of us that it turned out this way, was that much of the agenda was seized by events in Bosnia. I don’t think there is any doubt that events there have taken a turn for the worst over the last few days. There has also been some confusion publicly over the role and purpose of the Rapid Reaction Force. Let me say firstly that I am delighted that the Rapid Reaction Force got unanimous support from our partners here in Halifax, unanimous and very warm support from all our partners in Halifax.

    Let me make a couple of things clear again about the Rapid Reaction Force. The purpose of it is essentially twofold: firstly to enable the protection forces to carry out their existing mandate more effectively; and secondly to improve the protection forces’ ability to protect themselves whenever and wherever that may be necessary. The force will be part of the United Nations protection forces and it will be under United Nations command, and that means the French General, General Janvier, and Rupert Smith, the British General, commanding there.

    On Friday morning, early in the morning, the Security Council passed resolution 998 which gave the formal authority that was necessary to the despatch of the Rapid Reaction Force to Bosnia. Because of the difficulties that the American President has with the Republican leadership in Congress, the details of the question of paying for the force, reluctantly it has been necessary to put that to one side for the time being. It will need to be sorted out quickly, and I believe it will be, and our American friends are well aware of this. When I saw President Clinton yesterday he acknowledged the problems that he faces with Congress at present, but he reiterated the pledge that he had made at dinner on Thursday night that the United States would take its share of the cost. That is also the view of all the other Heads of Government gathered here, that their countries also would take their share of the cost.

    That is by no means an exhaustive account of the issues we have tackled, we made a considerable amount of progress on the environment, in looking at international crime and terrorism. It was extremely helpful to have Boris Yeltsin arrive last evening for discussions over dinner and more discussions this morning, and I think that underlines yet again the importance of the Russian political contribution which I hope and expect will be further developed in the G7 next year. We had a good discussion of Chechnya and of what can be done to promote a peaceful solution there.

    We also agreed, following President Yeltsin’s arrival, that we would have a summit in Moscow, on a date yet to be determined but in the first half of next year, to discuss various aspects of nuclear safety. There is a big agenda there. It is I think entirely appropriate for the members of the G8 to get together, possibly with others as well, still to be determined, in order to discuss what really is a very wide agenda. And we will be putting some experts together to look in detail at the matters we might productively discuss in Moscow next year.

    And President Yeltsin also took the opportunity to advise us of the up-to-date position in the south of Russia with the difficulties they face at the moment with the hostages. This is a frightful tragedy already and potentially, unless we are fortunate, the most serious terrorist incident that anybody will be able to remember. So there was a great deal of sympathy for the hostages there and for the dreadful situation and the predicament that President Yeltsin found himself in.

    I will not expand on these points any further at the moment but I will endeavour to take questions. If we could deal with questions for some time on the conference I think that would be helpful, there may be one or two others, we will take those later, but let us deal with matters to do with the conference.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Mark Pinder, AFX News):

    Prime Minister, given your push to liberalise world trade, how would you deal with criticism that this multilateral summit has been mostly silent on the US unilateral threat of sanctions against Japan?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are in favour of multilateralism rather than bilateralism, and that is known both to the United States and it is known to Japan. But at the moment both Japan and the United States are inhibited in discussing that matter with others because they are reaching towards their own conclusion to this, I think everybody accepted that and honoured the fact that that was the case. But the point was made that we believe in multilateral solutions to world trading problems and not bilateral solutions, and I think that was acknowledged and understood.

    QUESTION (David Boyle, New Economics Magazine):

    President Chirac described currency speculation yesterday as the Aids of the world economy, if that is the way he feels why does the summit fail to discuss the … levy at all and why does it simply call for the encouragement of the removal of capital market restrictions further?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    President Chirac expressed a view, he also agreed to the summit communique, we discussed all that. I think many people have a distaste for currency speculation. But of course we have to look at what in reality it is practical to do. If you were to take the sum total of all the foreign exchange reserved of all the G7 nations gathered around the table, you would find they would be but a portion of the movement over the New York exchanges on a daily basis. So clearly artificial means to curb currency speculation, I think from time to time at the fringes there are certain things one can do, I won’t say there is nothing that can be done, but I think the work that can be done in that fashion is very much on the margins of events. What really we were concentrating on rather more than that was the determination to try and remove the causes that generated currency instability, and that of course is a theme that I think the G7 have been following for some considerable time.

    QUESTION (Robert Chope, FT):

    Have you been disappointed by the reaction to the gold sales proposal which now appears to have been pushed further back and we are left with pledging as an alternative, do you think that is a practical alternative that would be as effective?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it will be effective, yes. Not everyone is undilutedly keen even to mention the wicked word gold in this context, but since the IMF has no other resources, it is gold we are talking about. From my point of view it doesn’t really matter whether it is pledged in order to raise resources or whether it is sold. The original proposition, one of the propositions for selling the gold, was simply to raise the capital, to maintain the capital of course but to use the interest on the capital. I think that can be done the same way in terms of pledging. What matters is the end product for the countries who will receive assistance and I am confident as a result of the discussions we have had that we will make progress on that.

    QUESTION (Nicholas Witchell, BBC):

    There is no reference to Chechnya in the Chairman’s statement, is that out of deference to Mr Yeltsin’s presence here? And on Bosnia, has Mr Yeltsin produced some new ideas on settling the conflict there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there are any new ideas on settling the conflict there. Whenever necessary, President Yeltsin has used his influence with Belgrade and encouraged Belgrade to use their influence with Parle. That has been the case in the past and he reiterated this morning that he would do that whenever it was necessary. And of course there has been a very constructive part played in the Contact Group by Andrei Kozyrev and very close relationships with the Russians. Indeed if you go back just a few years, it would have been almost inconceivable to imagine the degree of political cooperation that has taken place between the Western nations and Russia over Bosnia, and that will continue. But neither President Yeltsin, nor frankly, Nicholas, anyone else, has a simple and ready made off the shelf solution to the nightmare of Bosnia at present.

    Chechnya was not included, you are quite right, I am sure people will be asked questions about that, it was not included. It was not a subject of great discussion. We asked what the present situation was. Most people had their mind pitched more immediately upon the problems of the hostages and I think that is probably the principal reason why there was no specific mention. Though I think you will find that the Chairman of the meeting will probably mention it, will no doubt by now have done so, in his press conference.

    QUESTION (Harold Freedman, IHT):

    On Chechnya we have heard that at dinner last night a number of G7 leaders, including yourself, delivered a fairly stern lecture to Mr Yeltsin saying that if he had done more talking and less military action then he would not find himself in the predicament he is in right now with the hostages. Could you comment on that, is that true? Secondly, from your talks with US and Japanese counterparts are you optimistic or pessimistic about a resolution of the US/Japanese car dispute?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know whether I would categorise it as a stern lecture. There was some discussion of the matter, that is certainly true, but stern lecture is not really in the nature of these rather intimate round table discussions and neither would it really be very productive. I think from time to time people seem inclined to read a stern lecture to my country, I don’t think I would respond very happily to that on these occasions and I don’t think it would be a very productive way for people to behave. And far be it for me to put thoughts in President Yeltsin’s mind, but I think he would probably react the same way. So discussion, yes; stern lecture, I don’t think I would have called it a stern lecture.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there was a general discussion, I don’t want to go into the details of precisely who said what at the meeting.

    On your second question, I very much hope they are going to be able to settle the problems with US/Japan, they certainly believe they are making progress but that was not a substantive matter for discussion at the dinner last night, there was a passing reference to it. There was discussion during the day yesterday on the subject of US/Japan, but reverting to the point I made earlier and the point that we believe these things should be settled on a multilateral rather than a bilateral basis, the feeling was that progress was being made, that special circumstances did apply, we were reliably informed, but our view was that multilateralism should generally prevail.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    If I could just pick up on your concern and the concern the Foreign Secretary has expressed about Bosnia and the upsurge in fighting around Sarajevo. There is a report in the Financial Times today that if there has to be a sort of enforced withdrawal of the peacekeeping forces there it would take another 20,000 British troops there to ensure that that happened. Is that a realistic estimate of your contingency plans?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to go into the contingency plans except to say we have contingency plans for every foreseeable circumstance, at least every foreseeable circumstance that we have envisaged. But I think when one comes to that numbers game you can almost pay your own money and take your own choice, it depends what set of difficulties you stand up against the likely withdrawal. Whatever you put into the assessment on one side would lead to a difference in numbers on the other side, but I am not going to confirm that figure.

    QUESTION (David Smith, Channel 4 News):

    Nuclear and the proposed summit in Moscow, was there any discussion this morning with President Yeltsin on the nuclear programme with Iran and any evidence that he is prepared to listen more than when President Clinton raised it with him recently in Moscow?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I should emphasise that we are talking of civil nuclear, in case anybody misunderstands that, we are talking about civil nuclear safety in terms of the conference next year. There was not substantive discussion about Iran, there was reference to it, most certainly, but it was really simply in the context of the matters that we might examine at the conference next year rather than a structured discussion on the particular Russian/Iranian situation.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    Can I add a point, that the Chairman’s statement does call on all states not to collaborate with Iran in any way which could help them acquire a nuclear weapons capability, and that is something of course the Russians agreed.

    QUESTION (New Economics Magazine):

    Considering that the appeasement of genocide in Bosnia is now threatening the whole post-European order, is it not strange that the statement this morning mentions a very strong determination of the G7 to enforce UN resolutions regarding Iraq and Libya but does not mention those regarding Bosnia, and also it mentions a very strong determination to make those accountable who were responsible for genocide in Rwanda and Burundi and mentions the international tribunal, but does not express a similar determination regarding those responsible in former Yugoslavia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t recognise the introduction to your statement as having a great deal of connection with reality as I understand it. I don’t recognise the point about appeasement in Bosnia. In terms before the United Nations protection forces went in, in the year before they went in, there was something in excess, I take the figures from memory so they may be mildly out but not much I think, something over 100,000 deaths in central Bosnia. In the year after the United Nations protection forces were there there were less than 5,000, I think less than 3,000. If by appeasement you mean the Western nations should themselves have declared war on one or both sides in Bosnia and gone in in order to keep a peace in that fashion, then I have to say to you that is not what has traditionally happened in terms of United Nations peacekeeping and neither, in the particular circumstances of Bosnia, would it be a practical proposition.

    Almost the first thing I did when the Bosnian crisis broke was to actually seek military advice from our own senior military advisers in London as to how many troops would be necessary in order to prevent the fighting that was then taking place in Bosnia. I know other Heads of Government took the same sort of judgment and sought the same sort of advice. And the answer, in order to keep the parties apart, was something in the region of 400,000 NATO troops. And not only would you need to put 400,000 NATO troops in in order to keep the combatants apart, you would need to keep them there to ensure that the combatants remained apart and when at some stage in the future you left them the combatants may well start again, such is the nature of the ancient feuds there, unless there is a political settlement. And it was very much in my mind that we had had peacekeeping troops keeping combatants apart in Cyprus for 29 years and I did not think the concept of what would clearly have to be a NATO force, there would be no other show in town remotely big enough to do it, undertaking that role was ever practical. Not only was it never practical, we think, militarily, it was never practical because no country was prepared to put troops in in that scale and on those numbers.

    As far as the crimes of people in Bosnia are concerned, I think the war crimes tribunal point has been mentioned on many occasions in the past. I don’t see any need for me to reiterate it today.

    As far as peacekeeping elsewhere is concerned, a number of the countries who contribute to Bosnia have peacekeeping troops in a large number of countries around the world, certainly that is true of the United Kingdom and it is certainly true of our hosts here in Canada who have a record in terms of peacekeeping in blue helmets that. I think is probably unmatched by anyone else.

    QUESTION (Jonathan Fried, ISN TV Canada):

    Prime Minister Chretien has been expressing concern that any small contribution by .Canada to the Rapid Reaction Force might not be a meaningful one. Would you agree?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You ask the question at an appropriate time because I have just been saying quite gratuitously what a remarkable international record Canada has had in terms of peacekeeping. I cannot traipse on whether the Canadian Cabinet feel it right to make a further contribution to the Rapid Reaction Force, but from what I have seen of Canadian troops in the past, they have always made a positive contribution but that is not to be taken as an indication that I am especially prodding for a further contribution for Canada. Their contribution to Bosnia has been a very honourable one and to many other parts of the world as well they have done their share and more on many occasions.

    QUESTION:

    Would you welcome even a small contribution?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We would welcome contributions from anywhere where they are professional soldiers, as they are from Canada. But I think one mustn’t ask too much of any individual nation state. Canada must make that decision, if Canada decides to send a small number I personally will be very pleased, I think they will be able to make the warm contribution that Canadian soldiers always do. If they decide against it, I don’t think that is a cause for criticism of Canada with its record in Bosnia now and in many other places both at the moment and in the past.

    QUESTION (Bill Keegan):

    The Group of 7 have been involved for some years now with the reform process in Russia, was there any indication in the discussions with President Yeltsin that the precipitous decline in output there had reached bottom and was there any kind of discussion of further financial help or rescheduling of debt?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were no further requests for financial help. As to whether the Russian economy has bottomed out, we did discuss the Russian economy and President Yeltsin said over dinner last night that he expected the economy to grow, very modestly perhaps, around 1 percent this year. The implication was that there was bottoming out. There is also no doubt I think in the Russian economy that many of the reforms have begun to take root. Anyone who went to Russia 15 years or 20 years ago and was familiar with Moscow then, and who was to go back to Moscow today, would see a very remarkable difference. Of course from the point of view of the reformers it is sometimes a good deal slower than they would wish, they would like more dramatic improvement. But that a free enterprise democratic system has put down fairly healthy roots in Russia, I am absolutely confident. It will be a long period, this reform process. Anyone who thinks they are going to wake up this time next year or the year after and find that reform has been wholly completed in Russia I suggest should emulate Rip Van Winkle and sleep a little longer because that certainly will not be the case. But that they are making progress is certain, difficult and painful. I doubt many people would have imagined the progress on public expenditure that Chernomyrdin has made, it has been a good deal better than many imagined. Inflation was at outrageous levels, it is still very very high, but it has come down quite remarkably. So I think there is progress and if President Yeltsin’s assessment that there may be growth in the Russian economy this year is right, then I think that is an extremely good sign.

    QUESTION (CNBC TV):

    To what degree was there tension or frustration at the table over the US not being able to commit troops to Bosnia and President Clinton not being able to fully guarantee US payment for its share for the troops in Bosnia; and also about the French nuclear testing, to what degree was there tension or frustration at the table?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe there was tension or frustration around the table. The French nuclear testing matter was not mentioned at all. And on the earlier point, I think the position was well understood and has been well understood for some time. As far as the payment is concerned, I think there was an acknowledgement that the President would wish to pay assessed contributions, indeed he has said so repeatedly over the last few days and I think practising politicians sitting around the table sometimes acknowledge that there are frustrations that inhibit them from doing what they would most wish to do. So I don’t think there was a special frustration. We look forward to the President finding a way through it.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky):

    Throughout this summit you have made it clear that in your view you have a clear policy agenda which you don’t intend to be deflected from by the Conservative Party, can I therefore ask you why you don’t actually go ahead now and seek an early leadership election so that you can clear the air and then carry on?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You have been reading your competitors’ newspapers, Adam. I have certainly said that I have set out a clear agenda, and when you say the Conservative Party you might perhaps say some members of the Conservative Party rather than speak in a generality. We have a system for electing the leader of the Conservative Party, but that system is in the hands of the Conservative Party, not in the hands of the leader of the Conservative Party. We have a system, it is there, if people choose to use that system, that is a matter for them and not me. Every member of the party accepts that that is the right way to proceed and I see no signs of anyone wishing to change that.

    QUESTION:

    You have spent the week here discussing the future of world institutions, there are stories at home that you are going to spend this weekend contemplating your own future as Party leader and Prime Minister. Is there any question of your contemplating stepping down?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you promise not to tell anyone, in the intimacy of this meeting I will tell you that I intend to spend my weekend in very deep contemplation over whether the United Kingdom will manage to win their rugby match in South Africa tomorrow. When I say the United Kingdom winning, we have had four teams there, we have one left – England – and it has a very tough battle against our friends from New Zealand and I very much look forward to seeing that game and I very much hope that the games lives up to the remarkable game against Australia last week. But if you wish to know what is on my mind at this moment, and over this weekend, it will be England’s performance and England’s fate against New Zealand.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the G7 Summit – 16 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the G7 summit in Halifax, made on Friday 16th June 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked what the G7 summit had achieved].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is quite a lot of substance in the outcome of the summit on this occasion. We have agreed on a new Jobs Conference that will take place in France in the early part of next year, that will build on the conference that we had in Detroit last year and also on the work done by the OECD that produced a large number of illustrations of how best to create jobs, most of which of course were based on the British experience. So I think that certainly is a very good outcome. The arrangements to handle financial crises have been improved. We decided last year we would look at the United Nations, look at the financial institutions, and I think many people were shocked by the financial crisis following the lax surveillance of Mexico and their monetary problems. There are quite distinct improvements in that area. We made some more progress on helping the very poorest with their debt, I very much welcome the fact we have been able to do that. And we have produced quite a substantial menu of potential reform of the United Nations and its institutions. All those I think are very welcome.

    Equally welcome is the further movements we have made on free trade. The Uruguay Round has finished but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a great degree of liberalisation still to be carried forward and we had a very substantive discussion about that and agreement to carry it forward.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Chancellor Kohl in Bonn – 26 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s joint press conference in Bonn with the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, and the German and British Foreign Ministers, on Friday 26th May 1995.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Prime Minister, Ministers, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen. First of all I would like to apologise for the fact of keeping you waiting. You know that I am not in the habit to do so normally but we had our normal and regular consultations here today and it was all of a sudden today that the events in former Yugoslavia took a fairly dramatic turn, so at this point I would only like to make very briefly a few introductory comments on what loomed on the agenda of our bilateral consultations and then the Foreign Ministers will give a report on what happened today.

    The delay took place because the Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, whom we both wanted to call, and we did so, was not in Moscow but in Minsk and it took a little while to establish a telephone link with Minsk and unfortunately we had to keep you waiting. I would like to ask for your understanding.

    On the 25th Anglo-German consultations, they take place at a very important time in international politics. I would like to use the opportunity here, John, to thank you most warmly for the friendship that you have shown us and the support that you have shown us throughout these times that are so important in the history of our nation and where such painful memories come back into one’s memories. I would like to thank you for what you did on 8 May and I would like to thank you for the very good speech that you gave in Berlin, a speech that was characterised by friendship. On the issues that we discussed, well first of all we agreed on a private visit of John Major and his wife for the autumn of this year and I will be very happy to receive him as my personal guest at my home.

    We talked about the G7, about the preparations leading up to the G7 meeting in Halifax, to the EU meeting in Cannes, about all of the issues that we are going to discuss there, and we were at one in our desire before these important conferences, that is both for Halifax and for Cannes, to come to the closest possible consultation and cooperation between our two governments. And there are a number of priorities that we set for ourselves. First of all drawing the central and Eastern European countries closer to the European Union, legal harmonisation, looking here at the White Book of the Commission to that effect. Both governments have always been at one that drawing the young fledgling democracies of central and Eastern Europe closer to the European Union is one of the pre-conditions for being able to maintain peace in Europe.

    We talked about contacts and the relationship to the countries of the Mediterranean area; we talked about internal and legal policy about Europol and other related subjects; and obviously, and here too we closely cooperate, we talked about unemployment and the employment situation in general, and that incidentally was also a very important issue that loomed large on the agenda of President Chirac and myself last week.

    We also would wish that the Commission will submit the report in such a way to the Cannes meeting that we may be able to discuss the principle of subsidiarity. On the request of both of our governments, a German and a British group of entrepreneurs has brought in a number of proposals on deregulation and the Prime Minister and myself will, in a joint letter to the President of the Commission, submit this proposal for further examination,

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Helmut, thank you very much. Let me just add a few words to what the Chancellor has had to say. We have had a very friendly, very wide-ranging, very candid, very practical and very constructive meeting, and as always it has been immensely enjoyable.

    As the Chancellor said, we spent some time discussing the prospects of a G7 meeting in Halifax, we have had a very close look at some of the ideas that are around for reform of the international financial institutions and the United Nations. We looked particularly at the agenda for the Cannes European Council on deregulation, as the Chancellor said. We have been working together. There has been an Anglo-German business group working together, they have reached some conclusions and we have jointly written to all our fellow Heads of Government in the European Union, and the President of the Commission, sending them a copy of that report with our full support.

    We also discussed transatlantic relations, trade relations and other relations. We are certainly keen on building those up, keen on looking at the prospects for building on the GATT agreement and the advent of the World Trade Organisation, and this is something else that we will continue to return to time and time again in the future. I will not run through all the details of the points the Chancellor mentioned. He set out I think accurately for both of us much of the substance of our discussion.

    The Foreign Ministers have spent this morning talking about Bosnia and the Chancellor and I have spent some time on that as well. Let me just say a word or two about that and what has been happening in the last couple of hours. Clearly the situation is very serious there and there is no doubt that we need to look very carefully at what is happening there at the moment and what will need to happen in the immediate future. I had the opportunity about an hour ago of speaking on the telephone to General Rupert Smith in Sarajevo and he reported on the present situation there, I think, as you know, a substantial number of people have been killed and wounded in the attacks, the precise numbers, some have been reported, but the precise numbers in truth are not yet known and may not be known for a little while yet.

    What is perfectly clear is that what has happened over the last couple of days is immensely serious. The remedy for this overwhelmingly lies with the Serbs. They need to observe the ultimatum that has been set and they need to return their weapons to the collection point.

    A second point I think that needs making very forcibly. Whilst it is necessary for the Serbs to do that, it is also necessary to ask the Bosnian government to restrain themselves and not to add to any of the difficulties that at present are being faced by the United Nations protection forces.

    And the third point I would make I believe is equally very important. I hope there are no more attacks against United Nations personnel, either direct attacks against them or attacks with the intention of taking hostages, at all. I believe that would not be a way for them to proceed. Putting pressure on the nations who have troops there in the protection forces is not the right way for us to proceed at the moment and I hope that is fully understood by the Bosnian Serbs.

    Clearly we have some difficult decisions to face in the near future. The Chancellor and I have sent a message to President Yeltsin asking him to use his influence with the Bosnian Serbs, and after sending the message we managed to find him on the telephone at Minsk, and also had the opportunity of speaking to him and delivering precisely the same message, and I am very hopeful on the basis of that that he will use his influence to try and calm matters down in and around Sarajevo.

    I think for the moment I will leave events at that, return it to the Chancellor. He may want the Foreign Ministers to say a word about their morning discussions and then perhaps we could take any questions you may have.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Allow me to add, if I may, that we also established contact with the French Prime Minister. He is familiar with our message and the text of our message that we sent to Boris Yeltsin, but he is on the road somewhere in France and he is just now coming back to Paris. Klaus Kinkel will immediately try after this press conference to establish contact with him and inform him and I would like to remind all of us of the fact that yesterday night I had a long telephone conversation with President Clinton although all those things had not yet reached that dramatic peak that they have today.

    1. KINKEL:

    As the Prime Minister and the Chancellor said, the crucial issue of the talks between the Chancellor and Prime Minister Major and between my British colleague, Douglas Hurd, and myself was certainly the situation in Bosnia, a situation that has reached a new, dramatic peak particularly in the areas in and around Sarajevo and Tusla. You know that the Serbs massively attacked Sarajevo particularly this morning and there was a very large number of casualties and wounded. We don’t as yet have any substantive figures. Another air strike took place in the meantime and the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and we Foreign Ministers were at one that everything has to be done in order to reach a de-escalation of the situation.

    I had talks in Washington with Vice-President Gore, the Security Advisor Legge and also the Secretary of State, Mr. Christopher and this dramatic peak which the situation had reached loomed large on our agenda. We are in very close contact with the Secretary-General of NATO; before our talks, we had a number of telephone conversations with him and tried to get information on the most recent state of affairs.

    The Prime Minister has already pointed out and the Chancellor also mentioned that a message was sent to President Yeltsin and we finally made telephone contact. This was a message directed to President Yeltsin where we appealed to him to exert his influence on Milosovic to prevent him from supporting the Bosnian Serbs; the message further contained an appeal to Milosovic where we asked him to please do everything to see to it that the border between Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs remains closed. This message called for three very clear-cut objectives: first of all, de-escalation; secondly, the bombarding of the protected areas will have to stop immediately; and thirdly, heavy weapons have to remain in the collection points because there are indications that there too there may be a certain development that would be most unwelcome and most unpleasant and obviously the message said that the taking of hostages will not be in any way successful and that this must be stopped immediately.

    As the Chancellor said, we are in contact with Prime Minister Juppe, and with the Americans and tonight we are going to call them once again. Further steps will be the following:

    The Contact Group foreign ministers will meet Tuesday and Wednesday in Nortvige [phoentic] in Holland and then we will think once again about possible further steps and obviously we will try to make contact with Foreign Minister Kozyrev.

    I do not want to go into details of the military operation. We have been informed by Secretary-General Claus and by General Rupert Smith of the present state of affairs but this obviously is a matter for the military to assess the real situation on the ground and whether further measures will be taken.

    It is undoubtedly a very grave and very serious situation that we want to and will have to try to solve by resorting to political means. Any military solution of the Bosnian conflict, of the situation in former Yugoslavia, cannot and must not be the right way.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY DOUGLAS HURD:

    I do not need to add very much. As Klaus Kinkel has just said, it is clear that the decisions hour by hour on the ground and in the air rest with the NATO and United Nations commanders and as has been said, we have been in very close touch with them hour by hour this morning. Warren Christopher telephoned me first thing this morning in order to express his support for what the UN and NATO had done so far and indicated that it would be necessary, he thought, to do more. That is the view of everybody here and the Prime Minister made clear in Parliament yesterday that we fully support what has been done and that is also the German view so that is support for those who are responsible for these very difficult and dangerous decisions hour by hour on the ground but we have to support them in another way which is to try and bring the maximum pressure on all those concerned to prevent what is happening now which is bad enough – enough people are being killed – from escalating into an even greater war with more suffering, more casualties and the effect on the future of the United Nations effort and that is why the Federal Chancellor and the Prime Minister have sent a message to President Yeltsin, that is why they have talked to him, that is why we are in very close touch with the French and of course with the Americans. The Bosnian Serbs would have been wise to heed the terms of the ultimatum which they received; they would be wise to heed it now.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor, can you tell us how President Yeltsin reacted to the message that he received from you?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    He clearly gave us to understand – and obviously in a way I am adding my interpretation of it and using my own words now – that he considered the situation to be extremely dangerous and he promised to act on the basis of our message in any direction desired in that message. We did not talk about details obviously but both of us talked to him on the telephone and we both impressed on him how serious we thought the situation is. It is obviously a fairly unusual way of proceeding the sort of action which we immediately resorted to which we thought however was a very necessary reaction in view of the circumstances.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you spoke about some difficult decisions to face in the near future. What are those decisions and do they include a decision on whether or not to withdraw?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Over the days ahead, the immediate difficult decisions I had in mind were the difficult decisions to be taken by the commanders on the ground in response to whatever action may be taken against Sarajevo, against the ammunition dumps or against any other target so those were the immediate decisions I had in mind. They are decisions that will not be easy for the commanders. Clearly, if the situation deteriorates, one would have to take a strategic look but let me make clear again what I have said in the past. I think there are two points that are relevant:

    Firstly, for as long as it is possible, for as long as the United Nations protection forces can credibly carry out their humanitarian mandate and save lives, it would be my wish for the protection forces to stay there providing they can do so at acceptable risk to themselves.

    The second point is equally important. If they cannot carry out their mandate at acceptable risk, if the fighting escalates to a level when it is quite impossible, then clearly circumstances could arise when it would not be possible for the United Nations protection forces to remain.

    I emphasise that is not my wish. I believe they have done a superb job there, I very much hope they will continue to stay there but I think everyone on the ground needs to be aware that they are there with a particular mandate, with a humanitarian responsibility and they are not equipped to be in the middle of a full-scale war.

    QUESTION:

    There are reports that President Yeltsin has condemned the latest UN air strike. Can you confirm that, please?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen such reports.

    QUESTION:

    He didn’t express any view to you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We were primarily discussing what can be done to de-escalate the problem there and President Yeltsin undertook, as the Chancellor said a moment ago, to use his best offices.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor or Prime Minister, has any idea been put forward to reposition forces or regroup forces and also to deploy Western forces in order to protect the United Nations troops on the ground there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That would be a matter for the commanders on the ground to advise about, indeed it would be a matter for them to take decisions about. In terms of regrouping and moving the forces, the commander has the responsibility and the authority to do that in the interests of his own troops and his own mission. Whether he is doing that at the moment, I don’t yet knew. I don’t believe he has yet done so. If he believes it necessary, then he would have the authority to do so.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the 1994 Economic Summit at Naples – 11 July 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement on 11th July 1994 regarding the 1994 Economic Summit at Naples.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Naples summit of 8 to 10 July, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have placed the communique of the seven-nation economic summit and the chairman’s statement on the eight-nation political summit in the Library of the House.

    The summit process is changing in two important ways. In 1991, I invited the then Soviet leader to join the seven for a meeting after the London summit. This practice was continued in 1992 and again in Tokyo last year. I discussed a new format with President Yeltsin in February. That was to invite Russia to become a full and equal partner in our political meeting. That was accepted and President Yeltsin’s involvement brought an extra dimension to the political aspects of the summit. He made it clear that Russia will co-operate closely on the most difficult international problems, from Bosnia to North Korea ; and he was warmly welcomed in that spirit.

    The second change is that the summits are returning to the informality and free debate which characterised the early meetings 20 years ago. The move away from set-piece speeches and pre-scripted discussions made it the most wide-ranging summit which I have attended. We shall allow even more time for unscripted discussions next year at Halifax.

    We spent some time discussing international institutions. Many of the main world bodies–the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions, for example–have been with us for nearly half a century. The world has changed enormously in that period and so have some, but not all, of our institutions. For example, the World Trade Organisation will take over as a permanent body in place of GATT, itself originally a temporary structure. But, generally, we concluded that we should think about further changes to those institutions which may be needed in the future. We need to decide how best to meet the huge tasks confronting the different parts of the United Nations and how to respond to new economic problems. We may need to revitalise those institutions. We shall all consider that between now and the summit at Halifax next year. If we conclude that changes are necessary, we shall begin the process of bringing them about. The summit countries alone cannot make those changes, but it is right for us to ask whether they may be necessary.

    On economic matters, the summit built on the G7 countries jobs conference held in Detroit earlier this year. The world economy is now emerging from recession. At Naples, there was wide agreement on the policies that the G7 countries now need to pursue : free trade, flexible labour markets, deregulation, policies that help and encourage unemployed people back in to work, and investment in education and training. Those themes will be familiar to the House, because they precisely match the policies that this Government have been pursuing. They were all warmly endorsed by the G7.

    Further trade liberalisation is an important part of the G7’s strategy. The completion of the Uruguay round was a significant achievement that will increase trade and growth right around the world. We need the various agreements to be ratified by the end of this year. Thereafter, we should consider further initiatives on trade and on economic liberalisation.

    The summit proposed additional debt relief for the poorest countries. That is something I have long been pressing for. At Naples, we agreed on two specific measures to help those countries facing special difficulties : first, more help with debt payments, taking the level of relief above 50 per cent.–to two-thirds and perhaps beyond ; and, secondly, reductions in the stock of debt. We also agreed to explore ways of getting the international financial institutions to use their resources more effectively to help the poorest and most indebted countries.

    Since I introduced the Trinidad terms initiative four years ago, 22 countries have benefited, with nearly $3 billion of debts written off thus far. The new proposals agreed at Naples will provide further help to lift a burden from some of the world’s poorest countries. We urged that there should be more help for the Palestinian authority, which is setting up an entirely new administration in Gaza and Jericho and needs to encourage new enterprises. Britain is contributing £75 million, bilaterally and multilaterally, over three years, including the extra help for running costs and technical assistance announced last week.

    Likewise, in South Africa, Britain has allocated £100 million to transitional aid over the next three years. South Africa’s re-entry into the economic mainstream could do much to revitalise southern and central Africa.

    We also spent some time on Ukraine, where there is an evident need to restructure the economy. Given her position and size, it is important to have both a stable and prosperous Ukraine. The summit countries and the international financial institutions are keen to help that process, which must include reform of the energy sector. We are putting forward an action plan to close the Chernobyl nuclear plant, where there are continuing worries about the risk of another accident. Our plan will require reform by the Ukrainians as well as providing significant financial help from the west. We agreed also to replenish the nuclear safety account.

    On the environment, the G7 were concerned about the slow progress in meeting the commitments made at the Earth summit in Rio, and agreed to speed this up. Britain itself has fully met her commitments under the action plan agreed after Rio by the Group of Seven. We have published the plans required under the climate change convention. We all agreed to report further progress at next year’s G7 summit. At the Commonwealth conference last year and the European Council in Corfu, I argued for more action by Governments to oppose transnational crime, drug trafficking and money laundering. This approach was strongly supported at Naples. Where necessary, we are urging countries around the world to introduce legislation to prevent money laundering.

    Bosnia was discussed in my bilateral meetings with both the Russian and American Presidents and, of course, at the political summit itself. Collectively and individually, our Governments will urge the parties to accept the Contact Group’s settlement proposal. We are completely united on that point. There is a risk of a wider and more intense conflict if this opportunity for peace is not taken. Later this week my right hon Friend the Foreign Secretary, together with the French Foreign Minister, will visit the former Yugoslavia to impress this point on the parties.

    We need assurances about North Korea’s nuclear programme, including compliance with the non-proliferation treaty and with International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The summit supported the efforts of the United States and of South Korea to develop a dialogue with the north, and I hope that they will be resumed when North Korea has a new leader.

    In Yemen, the recent, brutal civil war has left fears about the country’s future stability. Iraq’s support for the north has caused justifiable concern to our friends in Saudi Arabia and Oman, both of which border Yemen. The summit called on the Yemeni authorities to resolve internal difficulties without repression. We were concerned that Yemen would become a new source of instability in the region. I have highlighted the key political and economic points of what was effectively two summits in one. Summitry has proliferated over the past 20 years. I believe that we need a critical approach to make the best use of these occasions. Many worthwhile changes are now taking effect, and the Naples meeting was much more valuable as a result. I commend the outcome of the summit to the House.

    Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South): There is much in the communique that we welcome, and much on which the Prime Minister touched only lightly, if at all. In particular, we welcome the communique ‘s strong emphasis on the need for action to create jobs, to promote growth and the increased wealth that that creates ; to tackle the damage being done to our environment and especially the problem of Chernobyl, to which the Prime Minister referred, and to work with the Ukraine to remove its nuclear stockpile. I join the Prime Minister in urging acceptance of the settlement proposals for Bosnia since, unsatisfactory though some may think them, continued conflict could surely only be worse.

    We were also pleased to see in the communique that a start is being made on the reform and modernisation of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. After talking about third-world debt relief on Trinidad terms for four years, it may actually begin to happen on a wider basis.

    However, does the Prime Minister acknowledge that for many in the developing world, money will still just be going around in circles with money freed by bilateral debt relief going to the World bank or the IMF instead unless steps are taken towards multilateral debt relief, building on the approach already adopted ?

    Although the Prime Minister spoke this morning of the advantages of increased international trade, does he accept that unless we find some way of oiling the financial wheels and promoting international support for the economic reconstruction and development to which he referred–in South Africa, the middle east as well as in eastern Europe–it simply will not happen ?

    We welcome the reference in the communique to the fresh allocation of special drawing rights for which the IMF and the new members from eastern Europe have called. However, can the Prime Minister tell us anything about the time scale for that decision and what discussions were held on other measures, perhaps, as in the past, financed from IMF gold stocks ?

    Will the role of the G8 be reviewed alongside the IMF and the World bank, as John Smith urged earlier this year, exploring the idea of an Economic Council of the United Nations alongside the Security Council and drawing in therefore, as the G8 at present fails to, other major economic players such as China and South America ?

    The Prime Minister’s principal contention in what he said about the economic summit is that the rest of the world is following Britain’s lead and that this because of our proven economic superiority. I can only describe that observation as self-deluding since it is supported neither by the words of the communique –and I urge Conservative Members to read the communique in the Library–nor by the facts. As anyone who reads the communique will discover, it calls for the co-ordinated pursuit of growth, job creation, skills enhancement, support for innovation and infrastructural renewal. Those are all Labour party policies since before the last election and they were all denounced by the Prime Minister as irrelevant and wrong. That leads one to wonder why he signed a communique which calls for precisely those measures.

    The Prime Minister should recognise that, if those words in the communique that he signed are to be more than empty words, a complete change of British Government policy will be required. Is it not the case that, far from endorsing the Government’s recipe of never-ending deregulation and lower wages, in the discussions the American Secretary of Labour called it

    “part of the problem not part of the solution”

    and that, although there is a call in the summit communique to reduce employment costs, this Government have increased them by pushing up national insurance and loading sick pay costs on employers ?

    The Prime Minister must also be aware that the truth is that, while all our competitors are keeping, and in some cases increasing, minimum wage protection–for example, in France and in some parts of the United States–and bringing measures like extra family leave into train, their record on growth, skills and job creation is better than ours.

    Is not the real message of the communique that our more successful rivals are pursuing, not the policies of this Government, but the path that we advocate? The Prime Minister and his colleagues show every sign of failing, yet again, to understand why they are failing Britain.

    The Prime Minister: I must say that that was a very novel interpretation, on which I shall comment in a few moments. I welcome the support that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) offered on a number of proposals in the communique relating to jobs, energy, environmental matters and on the approach that we are proposing on Bosnia. I also welcome what she said about the Trinidad terms. A substantial amount of debt has been written off already, but there is further to go. Some countries have been resistant to implementing the Trinidad terms, but I think that the Paris Club can now move ahead as a result of the agreement reached at the G7 in the past few days. That will be immensely helpful to many poor countries.

    As the right hon. Lady intimated, there are other ways of helping poor countries. It was rather masked in the arcane language of the communique , but we looked at using the IMF’s gold stocks to assist not only the very poorest countries in the world, but areas such as Gaza and South Africa, where there is a self-evident need for help. That is a wise way for us to proceed. In terms of job creation in those countries, the opening of markets, the liberalisation of trade and the elimination of debt will all provide an incentive for growth that will show within those countries–providing we are able to proceed with those proposals. The right hon. Lady then moved on to other matters and quoted rather selectively from the communique . Alas, she missed some points, such as a number of structural measures to reduce labour rigidities, which add to employment costs or deter job creation, eliminate excessive regulations, which will ensure that indirect costs of employment are reduced where possible, and to pursue active labour market policies.

    The right hon. Lady’s eyes apparently skimmed past a range of other things as she quoted from the communique . If she thinks that all those measures are Labour party policies, my hon. Friends and I will be very pleased to have learnt, at last, what it is that the Labour party stands for in terms of economic policies. As for the right hon. Lady’s concluding remarks about the relative performance of the United Kingdom, that is an old ground of dispute between us. I do not agree with her interpretation, because there is no doubt that our country is leading the European Community out of recession–there can be no doubt about that, because our growth this year is likely to be twice as high as that of any other European Community country. I find it astonishing that, when this country is doing well and companies and the work force are doing well, that is something that the Opposition appear to regret deeply. I am sorry to learn that.

    I must tell the right hon. Lady that we are leading the country and Europe out of recession. It is extremely good news for the world economy that the American growth now exists, that the Germans are now out of recession and that the G7 as a whole is moving back into growth by following the sort of policies that have brought this country out of recession, and not the policies that the Opposition advocate, which would take it straight back into recession.

    Mr. David Howell (Guildford): Does my right hon. Friend accept that he did an excellent and workmanlike job for Britain at the Naples summit ? He is to be congratulated on it. Like my right hon. Friend, I hope very much that the Contact Group will succeed in bringing peace of some kind to Bosnia. Can he explain why the Serb Bosnians should cease their fighting, after a 100-year ambition to expand their areas of control, when they have an unending supply of arms and equipment from Serbia proper? Has not the time come, particularly as Mr. Yeltsin is more on side now, to strengthen the embargo against Serbia proper in all sorts of ways? That would bring home to the Serbians and Serbian Bosnians that they cannot go on defying world opinion and that they must come to the peace table with everyone else.

    The Prime Minister: In his last few words, my right hon. Friend set out clearly the message which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Minister will take to the Serbs in the course of the next few days. It must be made clear to Serbia that Serbia and the next generation of Serbians have no future unless they are prepared to come to an agreement that is satisfactory to the world community. They cannot continue as they are and they can certainly expect no relaxation of sanctions or any international help until and unless they reach an agreement that will bring the fighting to an end.

    For some time, both the Serbians and, on occasion, other parties have moved away from the settlement that could have been reached in the belief that, if they waited, they would get a better deal in the future. There is now no doubt that the international community is determined to do whatever it can to enforce a settlement. I find it striking that each of the political heads of the G8, including the President of Russia, were determined that now was the opportunity to put every conceivable pressure on all the parties to come to a satisfactory settlement.

    Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that the forthcoming mission of the Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Secretary, backed by President Yeltsin, to try to persuade the warring parties in Bosnia that they must accept the peace settlement, however imperfect, deserves the united support of this House?

    On the economic section of the communique, will the Prime Minister forgive me if I do not quote bits of Liberal Democrat policy in its support, following the pattern already set? On the institutional changes contemplated in the world financial bodies, will he assure us that he will also look at their lack of accountability to member Governments and member Parliaments for the policies that they pursue?

    Finally, does the Prime Minister accept that, although the communique is less specific than his statement, we welcome the new debt relief proposals that he has achieved? He will know that the all-party Africa caucus lobbied the Chancellor before the meeting, and he saw us last year. We are deeply grateful for the progress that has been made. It will certainly bring widespread relief to at least six of the poorest countries in Africa.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his final point. As soon as we have moved a little further with debt relief, we need to look again at the countries that are eligible for it. Some countries fall on just the wrong side of the debt relief line currently available under the Trinidad terms, but those countries may be helped by the point which the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked me about–the proceeds of institutional gold sales by the IMF. That would not necessarily be restricted to Trinidad terms countries.

    On the institutional changes, accountability certainly needs to be examined. That is perfectly clear. The underlying reason for that examination is simply to determine whether, after so many years, the institutions themselves are still relevant to the problems that are likely to face us in the next 10 or 15 years. By “institutions”, I mean not only the Bretton Woods institutions–the IMF and the World bank–but we need also to look at the United Nations, the development of NATO in the light of “Partnership for Peace”, and the enlargement of the European Union, as well as the changes that we have already seen with GATT becoming the World Trade Organisation. Those are not matters which the G7 can determine but, in all those institutions, the G7 countries are leading members.

    If we decide that there needs to be some reform, at that stage we shall wish to consult other members of those institutions in an attempt to bring about the reform. But I emphasise that the G7 does not see itself as a directorate that can impose those changes on the institutions. We are simply making the point that now is the time to examine them to see what changes are necessary.

    I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Bosnia and I am grateful for his support for the visit of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Several hon. Members rose

    Madam Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members seek to question the Prime Minister. I am now looking for one brisk question each and, if I may, brisk answers.

    Sir Peter Emery (Honiton): Was further consideration given to the extension of the non-proliferation treaty to those countries that have not signed it? Will Japan support any action that might be taken against North Korea if the situation deteriorates rather than progresses?

    The Prime Minister: There was, in discussion, unequivocal support by all the G7 members, including Japan–and of course Russia as part of the G8–for the indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty in 1995.

    Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): The summit communique reads remarkably like the election manifestos put out by my hon. Friends who are candidates for the Labour leadership– [Interruption.] –so, obviously, there are good things in it. In particular, I welcome the movement of the G7 into the G8, including Russia, and the arrangements for a very searching 50-year anniversary review of the institutions set up in Bretton Woods. On the question of aid, can the Prime Minister tell us what figure he hopes to put on the further concessions of debt relief as compared with the $3,000 million debt relief already gained ?

    The Prime Minister: I think that it is difficult to put a precise figure on it. I will examine the scope for further reduction, and I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with a figure. It will be a very substantial figure indeed, but I cannot immediately put a figure on it.

    On the earlier points, I am pleased to have the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the review of the institutions. I was a little surprised to hear of the apparent similarity between the communique and the manifestos of the potential leaders of the Labour party, which I have read with great interest– [Interruption.] I am not sure that my vote would swing the result–not least, though, alas, he is not with us this afternoon, that of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who, despite what was in the G7 communique , said on 4 July :

    “Deregulation has been an economic failure”.

    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford): Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend’s reply to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) about nuclear proliferation, does he agree that one of the biggest problems is that North Korea and China are at the apex of a chain of proliferation which has already taken place, and that many countries in the middle east, not least Iran, Iraq and Libya, have significant capability and within the next five or six years are likely to have a launch facility which will be able to strike parts of Europe? Does he agree that now is the time for us to accept that proliferation has to some extent failed, and to find new measures?

    The Prime Minister: I am disinclined to accept the concept that proliferation has failed because I think that it is extremely important that we press the case for non-proliferation whenever and wherever we have the opportunity. It is not always entirely clear precisely who has the capacity to launch nuclear weapons and who has them. I wish it were a good deal clearer than it sometimes seems to us. But there is no doubt that we need to maintain pressure. My hon. Friend mentioned a number of countries which we have been pressing precisely on this point. He could probably name others, and so could I. However, we intend to continue to press for non-proliferation both through the treaty and, of course, bilaterally.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): What did President Yeltsin say to his colleagues about sanctions against Iraq ? How does the Prime Minister feel about continuing sanctions and the shortage of water filters and water pumps in the sweltering heat of Baghdad which will most certainly lead to massive disease in the Euphrates and Tigris valleys ?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows of the humanitarian options that are available, and he and I have had the opportunity of discussing them in the past. President Yeltsin did not express a view on this matter, but Russia, of course, has supported the imposition of sanctions on Iraq, and continues to do so.

    Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham): Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Group of Seven considered the long-term economic impact on the rest of the world of the growing industrial strength of Asiatic countries, not only Japan, Korea and Taiwan, as it was, but now increasingly India, China and half a dozen other countries?

    The Prime Minister: We did not specifically discuss those countries in that sense, but in all the economic discussions of employment and growth, the changing position of south-east Asia and the Pacific basin countries was ever present in our minds. Many of the countries that were relatively captive markets to western states 20 or 25 years ago are now not only competing with those previous supplier countries but competing very successfully with them in different parts of the world. That is one of the matters that I think underlies the concern that we have for the maximum amount of industrial efficiency in this country, because competitiveness is far greater as a result of what has happened in the Pacific basin than it has ever been before.

    Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the contribution that Her Majesty’s Government are making to the rebuilding of Palestine. Would he be good enough to give the House some idea of what contributions his G7 colleagues are likely to make to that purpose, and does he consider them anything like sufficient for the immense job that faces President Arafat?

    The Prime Minister: It is, as the hon. Gentleman says, an absolutely immense job. Apart from our bilateral contributions, there will be bilateral contributions of various sizes from a number of the other G7 countries, and also a substantial collective contribution from the European Union. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with details of the figures that we have.

    Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington): May I return to the issue of non-proliferation in relation to nuclear matters ? Was there any consideration at the summit of measures that it might be right for the G7 to take–and Russia to take–to encourage other sources of energy in countries that might be tempted to go nuclear precisely because they see nuclear power as their best chance for the future ?

    The Prime Minister: There was no discussion on that point–time did not permit detailed discussions on it. We are primarily concerned to make sure that the non-proliferation treaty is extended and that it sticks. As my hon. Friend will know, a large number of countries are at the moment disinclined to sign it; we are very concerned to make sure that they do.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Another summit, another jamboree. Why did not the Prime Minister tell us about the part of the communique that he had to deliver at the end of the summit in respect of those two Tory Members of Parliament with their noses in the trough?

    On the subject of deregulation, why should big business have to carry the on-costs of lining the pockets of Tory Members to put down questions ? In some of the other G7 Parliaments, the rule is : one Member of Parliament, one job only. If people cannot manage on £31,000 a year, they should not put up for the job.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman no doubt thinks that these summits are enormous fun. Set against the attractions of a cricket final at Lords they do pale to a certain extent, at least for me. The matters mentioned, with his usual delicacy, by the hon. Gentleman were not discussed at the summit.

    Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South): When the Foreign Secretary goes on his crucial mission this week–we all wish him success in that–will he and his colleagues see President Milosevic, Mr. Karadzic and General Mladic together, to impress on them not only how seriously the G8 view their appalling actions but also the fact that those who are responsible for war crimes will be brought to book?

    The Prime Minister: I am confident that my right hon. Friend will meet each and every one of those gentlemen, but I very much doubt whether he will meet them together. There are likely to be separate meetings. He certainly proposes to see the leaders of the Serbs and the Bosnian Serbs, and I have no doubt that he will make my hon. Friend’s final point to them.

    Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool): Did the Prime Minister, in one of his scripted or unscripted moments in Naples, discuss the presidency of the Commission? In his quest for anyone but Dehaene to succeed Delors, can he tell the House who now is in the frame and what qualities they have?

    The Prime Minister: That too was not a matter for the G7 summit. There was no formal discussion at Naples of the Commission presidency.

    Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland): Go on.

    The Prime Minister: I shall repeat it for the right hon. Gentleman’s benefit : there was no formal discussion in Naples of the Commission presidency. It would be wholly wrong for four member states to form a caucus. [Laughter.] The House is well aware of the objection that I took to that on a previous occasion when there seemed to be a caucus. What is needed is thorough consultation between all 12 states, and that is what the German presidency has in hand.

    Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest): The conclusions of the summit properly recognised the importance to economic growth of deregulation and labour market reform–despite the somewhat spurious claims of the Johnnies-come-lately on the Opposition Benches. Would my right hon. Friend agree that, in a European context, subsidiarity is particularly important? Does he agree with Klaus Kinkel, the German Foreign Minister, who recently said that subsidiarity provides the opportunity to roll back European decision making? Is not that evidence that European decision makers are at last coming round to the British view on subsidiarity?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly know that the German presidency proposes to take subsidiarity a good deal further during its presidency of the European Union in the second half of this year. I have not heard the particular quote by Mr. Kinkel, but it is certainly one to which I would subscribe, and it is an indication of the extent to which the terms of debate in Europe have changed.

    Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East): If the Government think that they are dragging us up the economic hill, taking the G7 countries behind us, who took us down in the first place?

    The Prime Minister: One might ask the same question of all the G7 countries which suffered recession.

    Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight): In three weeks’ time, the Bank of England will be celebrating 300 years of survival. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best news to come out of the summit is that the G7 central banks, and the Bank of England in particular, would no longer be required to chase the US dollar all over the Pacific?

    The Prime Minister: The tercentenary of the Bank of England is a remarkable occasion : the bank has been an astonishing institution over the years. My hon. Friend makes his point with great clarity.

    Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton): Virtually the whole House will approve of the G7 putting up the money to close down Chernobyl nuclear power station. When is that likely to come about? There are other nuclear power stations of similar design in the former Soviet bloc. Will money be put up to close them down as well?

    The Prime Minister: We have reached agreement on the way to help the Ukrainian authorities to close the Chernobyl plant. That involves closing the remaining reactors and assisting to complete new reactors with modern safety standards. That will now have to be discussed with the Ukraine. That will happen speedily, and I hope that the resources can then be made available. We have centred on Chernobyl because of the nature of that reactor and its condition, which is one of the special concerns.

    Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): Given that much of the nervousness in world financial markets appears in part to be due to worries about long- term inflation, what discussion took place on inflation prospects? Were other countries present able to point to the good news on inflation such as that we had today on factory prices?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, there was some discussion on inflation. There is no doubt that at the moment inflationary tendencies are subdued, not just in this country but in other countries. It is certainly the intention of the G7 Governments, as far as it is practicable, to keep inflation at the lowest possible level. I hope that that will have its long-term impact on the markets as soon as it is apparent to them that that is happening.

    Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie): The news that the United Nations and its organisations and the international financial institutions are to be reviewed is welcome, but is not this a matter of such importance that it would be appropriate for the Government to issue a consultation paper so that there could be widespread debate in this country on those matters?

    The Prime Minister: We first have to consider the matter ourselves. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am not immediately attracted to issuing a White Paper. I think that the first process is for us to consider as a Government–and I accept that it is certainly a reasonable matter for a debate in the House–whether we think that changes are necessary and, if so, what they might be. However, I would prefer to engage in discussion with other Governments before deciding what to press for. Although I hope that other people would not hesitate about letting us have their views, I am not at the moment attracted to publishing a White Paper.

    Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): May I draw attention to the pressure, according to the communique , that the G7 countries and Russia are putting on the Haitian junta to step down? In his campaign for democracy and human rights, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the last Latin American republic that has still not returned to democracy and human rights–Cuba?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right : Haiti is a matter of some concern to a number of countries and, of course, particularly, for self-evident reasons, to the United States. We should certainly like to see the restoration of President Aristide and democratic government. That is equally the view of the other G7 Heads of Government.

    Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): The Prime Minister spoke of the concern of the G7 Governments for the poorest in the world. Was he able to tell them when his Government would reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP for overseas aid?

    The Prime Minister: No Government was able to give a commitment as to when that would be. As the hon. Lady knows, I think that we have the sixth largest aid programme in the world. I think that our record is unequalled by any other country in terms of the amount and speed with which we have completely written off historic debt.

    Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes): I believe that my right hon. Friend said that South Africa was discussed at the summit over the weekend. Will he confirm that it is imperative that the G7, rather than just the United Kingdom, contributes to ensuring the economic development and regeneration of South Africa? If that country succeeds economically, the trickle-down effect across the whole continent will be of great benefit.

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that other countries also recognise the importance of South Africa. In effect, they recognise that in two ways–the importance of dealing with the internal difficulties of the new South African Government ; and, equally, the impact of a successful South Africa on the whole of southern and central Africa. I have no doubt that other countries will offer assistance. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of trade is currently in South Africa, with business men, to determine what assistance can be given.

    Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield): In his statement, the Prime Minister suggested that the G7 supported his Government’s calls for flexible labour markets. However, was it not the case that in the final communique other members of the G7 insisted specifically that the word “flexible” was not part of the final words? Is not that because they have quite a different view from Government policy on the best way to create jobs?

    The Prime Minister: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman heard that, but it did not occur in any discussion to which I was party.

    Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): Following directly from the question asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) about job creation, did not the G7–now G8–countries discuss the introduction of an information super-highway? Did not they have before them the European Commission’s White Paper on growth, competitiveness and trade? If so, were not they surprised that it is full of the British solution to introducing an information super-highway, which is competition, deregulation and privatisation?

    The Prime Minister: That White Paper was referred to in the discussions, although the super-highway was not mentioned other than in the general sense of greater liberalisation of telecommunications.

    Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): Will the Prime Minister tell the House why the G7 nations cannot bring pressure to bear on the International Monetary Fund and the World bank on the issue of accountability? Will pressure be brought to bear on the IMF and the World bank to ensure that in future developing nations will be genuinely treated as equal partners and not as beggars?

    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the IMF views indebted countries in that fashion. It tries to assist them and to help them out of their difficulties. That is one of its purposes. Certainly those IMF officials whom I have met would not in any way characterise the countries in the way that the hon. Lady described them. There is no doubt that there is a need for assistance for those countries. I believe that the IMF provides it. However, as we examine the future of the IMF and other institutions, we need to consider whether that can be done better in the future than it has been done in the past.

    Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South): Although the whole House welcomes the trade and aid policies being pursued by the European Union towards Gaza and Jericho, does my right hon. Friend agree that the responsibility for helping those parts of the world goes much wider than just Europe? Was any estimate made of the contribution that the oil-rich Arab states could make to the regeneration process?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches upon an important point. There is no doubt that the Arab states–many, although not all, of which are oil-rich–should make a significant contribution to the future development of Gaza. That point is relevant– [Interruption.] I hear an Opposition Member whispering that some of them have already committed.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Some of the money has gone.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman interrupts me. An Opposition Member whispered that some of the Arab states have already contributed. Others have indicated that they will do so.

    Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): Was there any discussion of the urgent need to provide continuing financial assistance to those countries most heavily affected by the imposition of United Nations sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro? The Prime Minister will surely agree that Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Macedonia deserve continuing assistance.

    The Prime Minister: There was no specific discussion of that matter, for the simple reason that the international financial institutions take that into account in the assistance that they provide at present.

    Mr. Michael Bates (Langbaurgh): Is my right hon. Friend aware that news that the considerable needs of the poorest nations of the world featured so high on the agenda of a meeting of the richest seven nations will be deeply refreshing to many people throughout the country? Will he ensure that the review of international institutions, which is long overdue in the eyes of many, will specifically examine the costs of bureaucracy and duplication so that the maximum amount of money can go to those who need it most?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. In providing further assistance to many of the poorest countries, there is a need not only for cash assistance–and I do not resile from the fact that much of that is necessary–but to do whatever can be done to ensure that the money is used for the purposes for which it was intended.

    Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East): Did I hear the Prime Minister make a fleeting reference to unemployment and employment creation? If I did, does the right hon. Gentleman accept Library statistics that show that, in Britain today, only 25 million people are in employment when the peak figure in 1990 was 26 million? We are 1 million jobs short. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that, when the G7 nations discussed that matter, they did not settle on the part-time, low-wage, poverty-making employment that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government have created? What will they do to provide real jobs at decent wages for people in G7 countries?

    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he is completely wrong. Perhaps he would like to tell me how many countries have a higher proportion of their adult population in work than does this country. There is only one in the European Union, and the hon. Gentleman would go a long way outside to find another that is better. The drivel talked by his hon. Friends can safely be ignored.

    Mr. Mike O’Brien (Warwickshire, North): Will the Prime Minister confirm that, either at the summit or in his bilateral discussions with President Clinton, he raised concerns about the fall in the US dollar and the impact that that would have on constituents such as mine who work at Jaguar who need to export to the US market?

    The Prime Minister: No. I am not going to make any comments in the House on currency values.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on G7 Summit – 10 July 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the G7 summit, made during an interview broadcast on Monday 11th July 1994, and recorded in Naples on Sunday 10th July 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked that although the G7 summit had been confident, what had it done for the unemployed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are right about the tone of the G7, it has been a good deal more up-beat than many people imagined, but I think that is partly because of the patent change there is in in the prospects for the future, not just in the United Kingdom, but in many other countries as well. I think it has done several things for people who are unemployed. Firstly, the growth of trade and the improvement in growth is a very good opportunity to get more people back into work. Second, the summit look at three things, all of which are critical to job creation: the first of them is the acceleration of trade, that is self-evidently vital; the second is the improved labour market flexibility, that is a song that was only sung by the British a few years ago, it is now common currency amongst our partners and was accepted without any demur on this occasion; and thirdly, the complete recognition of the importance of education and training. I make that point for this reason. If one looks over the last 25 years or so we see there is a rising pool of people across the world who are unemployed, people with skills are more likely to get employment, but people who are unskilled are more likely to form an ever growing pool of people who are unemployed, that is the importance of education and training.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the falling dollar would increase unemployment].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you consider what happens on the exchanges, trillions and trillions of pounds across the exchanges each day, you do not solve that problem by a brief discussion. Of course there was discussion of this matter both amongst Heads and amongst Finance Ministers, but I think we have learned that public comment about that is usually counter-productive.

  • Mr Major’s Arrival Doorstep Interview in Naples – 8 July 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s arrival doorstep in Naples on Friday 8th July 1994.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what can this summit do for the 24 million jobless there are in the G7 countries?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think one of the themes of the summit is clearly going to be jobs and employment and I would be very surprised if the summit does not reach the same sort of conclusion that we reached at Corfu and elsewhere and that is that supply side reforms and making the cost of employment less expensive is the right way to proceed.

    QUESTION:

    Are you worried about the falling dollar and will the G7 leaders here be able to neglect that problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure that is going to be discussed here on this occasion.

    QUESTION:

    What will you be saying to President Clinton about his views on European unity and German leadership?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think what was reported about President Clinton’s views were quite different to what President Clinton said, so I am not sure that he and I will be discussing it.

    QUESTION:

    The President said this morning that the Japanese have not delivered on their promises at last year’s G7 to liberalise trade, would you agree with that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly wish to discuss the liberalisation of trade, I think that will be one of the issues that we will discuss, I think there are a variety of areas both in terms of investment and in terms of trade flows, I shall certainly want to discuss liberalisation and of course Japan has more to do.

    QUESTION:

    Do you expect to make progress here in the margins on the successor to M. Delors?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not expecting to have substantive discussions about that here, no, whether it is discussed is a matter for the Presidency of the Commission, they may well approach me, but this is a decision for all Twelve, it is not something that can be agreed with just two or three members of the Community here.

    QUESTION:

    Is Lord Archer definitely out in a Cabinet reshuffle?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will announce the Cabinet reshuffle when I am ready to do so.

    QUESTION:

    Will you be pressing here again for reform of the G7 as an institution, do you think it is time for it to be widened to accept more Asian economies?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will certainly be pressing for more reform of the summit itself, I think we have made some progress in terms of making it more informal but frankly I do not think we have gone as far as we can and I would certainly like to see it made yet more informal in the future.

    QUESTION:

    Would you be prepared to put up British money to help rid the world of the Chernobyl nuclear reactors?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have indicated in the past that we are prepared to put up a certain amount of money to do that, yes, I think it is in everyone’s interest that we deal with the problem of Chernobyl. But I do not think it is just that, we also need action to be taken by the Ukrainians as well, but that will be an important item on our agenda.

    QUESTION:

    Can you tell us how much?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not out here, no.

    QUESTION:

    Is there any progress on debt relief for the Third World?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope so, yes, I think we will get some progress on debt relief for the Third World. We pushed a long time ago firstly for Toronto Terms and then for Trinidad Terms. A lot of progress has been made, I think we can make some more. I hope when we have made progress on Trinidad Terms we may look to see whether we can go even further.

    QUESTION:

    Do you have anything at all to say about Lord Archer as one of the most devoted and hard working members of your party?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is an investigation going on, it is right that there should be an investigation going on but you would not expect me to comment on it and I am not going to.

    QUESTION:

    Do you feel for him as an old friend in the current predicament?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One always feels for an old friend but I am not going to comment on it. There is an investigation going on, that is proper, the investigation must proceed. It would be quite wrong for me to say anything beyond that.