The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Terrorism

  • Sir John Major’s Article in The Spectator on Terrorism – 14 January 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s article in The Spectator on terrorism, published on 14th January 2006. The article was entitled “Terrorism – Policing Alone is Not Enough”.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    If the world is to succeed in combating terrorism, then politicians and statesmen must strip away old prejudices and think afresh. That will not always be a comfortable thing to do, for at times it will mean trying to see things from the perspective of the terrorist. I remember how uneasy I felt as prime minister when I spent many hours trying to think myself into the mind of the Provisional IRA. What I had to do then others must do now – but on a much wider scale.

    The fear of global terrorism has replaced the fear of global war. But though terrorism is bolder and more deadly than ever, it has so far failed in its objectives. When Spain, Portugal and Greece dumped fascism, it was not due to terrorism. When communism collapsed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, it was not due to terrorist pressure. Gandhi was far more successful at effecting change than Bin Laden will ever be.

    What is the purpose of terror? For many terrorist groups the aim is to radicalise Islam, to set Muslim against non-Muslim, to play upon prejudice, to foster hatred. Al-Qa’eda’s objective – a perversion of mainstream, moderate Islam – is the unification of the Islamic community around the world, its purification and the imposition of the most literal translation of strict Sharia law. Bin Laden and his associates wish to see the world divided between Islam and everyone else. Their tactics we know: distortion of the Koran, indiscriminate terror, and the call for a holy war – a jihad – against all who oppose them.

    Other terrorists – those in Northern Ireland or Thailand, for example – pursue specific political agendas by unsettling democracies. But always the aim is to create chaos. The economic impact of terrorism is the destabilisation of markets; the political impact is the undermining of civil order and government by consent.

    Terrorism and democracy are polar opposites. As they confront one another, we must ask: is it possible that such a shadowy concept as terrorism can be identified, isolated and defeated? Yes, it can, though we must bear in mind that terrorist groups are rarely entirely destroyed: smaller groups, sometimes made up of the hardest of hardliners, replace them. But, over time, terror can be beaten and the potency of its threat removed.

    So, if democracy can win, how can it do so? The answer is complex. One thing we must do right away is rid ourselves of the notion that there is a worldwide terrorist conspiracy. Certainly, some groups have widespread and growing tentacles. Sometimes there is co-operation between several organisations, for some terrorists are mercenaries for hire, unconcerned by any particular cause and motivated only by hatred and greed. But there is no worldwide conspiracy. Most terrorist groups are close-knit, relatively small organisations with their own causes, however perverted, and their own ambitions, however ill-conceived. Their causes may overlap – and occasionally merge – but they are not joined together in one single organisation.

    The key here is to recognise that we must take action against existing terror groups today, and implement political measures to prevent the contagion re-emerging tomorrow. To achieve this, all nations threatened by terrorism have a role: a coalition of the willing must embrace every country that wishes to be democratic. These nations must work together to deny terrorists their safe havens, cut off their financing and stem the flow of recruits. They must also, and above all, deny them their causes.

    And, to defeat the ideological threat they pose, we must understand the motives that drive them and seek to re-educate those who sympathise with them. We must accept that we cannot win by military power alone, but concede that we cannot win without it.

    To win, many nations must be engaged in what will be a complex and protracted battle, not least of minds. International co-operation is vital: we need to co-ordinate action against terror, inhibit the movement of terrorists, attack money-laundering, penalise nations that fund terror, reduce their supply of weapons and agree worldwide extradition of terrorist suspects. Yet rendition can only be counter-productive. It is not wise policy.

    But these measures alone, though vital policing actions, are not enough to bring victory. We must go further. We must ask ourselves: what motivates terrorism? What encourages non-terrorists tacitly to support them? What can we do to make terrorism so abhorrent as utterly to isolate the terrorist?

    The answers to these questions are not always palatable. Radical ideology has fed the perception that the religion of Islam is under attack. Al-Qa’eda asserts this every day. Radicals use this belief as a recruiting sergeant. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars have done much to feed this perception that Islam is under attack. So has the failure to bring the Middle East peace process to a successful conclusion.

    The radicals are wrong, but their propaganda is effective. To rebut it, democracies must lessen the chance of demagogues exploiting hardship to promote terrorism. They must fight for the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured. Words alone will not do; they must accept obligations that illustrate the morality of democracy. They must seek to alleviate poverty, disease and injustice.

    The wealthy industrial nations must show that we care about the flotsam and jetsam that trail along behind globalisation. We must be concerned at the maldistribution of growing wealth. We must be aware, too, that the free market is bringing about changes that disturb the absolutism of old faiths. We must be aware of the destabilising effects of imposing modern liberalism on ancient tribal cultures.

    Economic liberalism and radical militancy have grown side by side. Why? One answer is that economic liberalism leaves some people behind – and social and economic marginalisation encourages political radicalisation. The rich nations are not without conscience on these issues but, overall, they do too little. It is thus all too easy to portray the large democracies as uncaring, and every radical voice is keen to recruit converts by doing so.

    And the democracies are not entirely blameless. For years, Europe and the United States have been spending broadly seven times as much subsidising cheap food for their own people – who are already well fed – as the whole world spends on all the needs of those whose bellies are swollen with hunger. To combat radicalism we must remove grievances, cut away resentment. By doing so we undercut the message of hate that fuels radicalism.

    At the same time we must realise that specific events or conflicts will continue to be used to promote the cause of terror. The Arab–Israeli dispute is one. Palestine has become the issue that is, above all, the poison in the well of relations between Islam and the rest of the world. The strong support given to Israel is based on admiration for a talented nation forged from a whole history of persecution. Support for Israel does not imply an anti-Palestinian bias. And yet, in the eyes of the Muslim world preoccupied with the truly pitiable living conditions in Palestine, support for Israel rankles.

    Israel will never be truly safe without acceptance by the Arab states; but Palestine too needs a future. An active peace process is vital for everyone, otherwise there is a vacuum which terror and mayhem will fill. Too often, hope has been dashed for Israelis and Palestinians alike. The continuing dispute has created a playground for the terrorist and, over the years, has so unsettled the political climate in the Middle East that trust has gone and a lasting solution has proved elusive. This plays into the hands of the terrorist, for it gives this dispute a much wider fuse, allowing it to be used to justify terrorism elsewhere.

    At times it is difficult to see how there can be an end to the intransigence, how there can ever be a peaceful solution. It is depressing beyond belief, but it forces us to face the reality: in Palestine, as elsewhere, political progress remains the only way forward. And that progress requires greater understanding of what drives the terrorists; we must, as I stated above, think ourselves into the minds of the gunmen and bombers.

    There is much we can learn from experience. We can learn that economic revival is an ally in promoting democracy, and that in lands without hope resentment has a fertile breeding ground. But no one should expect trust to replace suspicion quickly or easily: it is always difficult to wring compromise from entrenched positions. Denouncing terrorists is all very well, and politically safe, but to save lives it may sometimes be necessary to engage with terrorists as well. And, where trust has collapsed, international diplomacy may be needed to supplement national effort. These lessons are eternal.

    What else can governments do? A great deal. Islamic governments can speak out about the true nature of Islam, in order to counter the message of the radicals. All governments can work together to encourage inter-faith dialogue. Schools which preach extremism should be pressed to modernise their curricula. Above all, Islamic and other governments can address marginalisation in their societies.
    All this – and more – must be part of the anti-terrorist campaign. If we are to repel terrorism and not merely suppress it temporarily, we need to reach out far wider than military and security action alone. Politics and diplomacy must join with policing to capture minds as well as militants.

    Nothing less will succeed.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech on Terrorism – 7 December 2005

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech on Terrorism, given at Yale University, Connecticut, on Wednesday 7th December 2005.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Great pleasure to be at Yale – and also to see my old friend President Zedillo. When Stanley Flink invited me I was delighted to accept …. after all, since I left full time education at fifteen, an invitation to visit one of the great Universities of the world was irresistible.

    And – in any event – America is a second home to me. My father was brought up in Pennsylvania in the 1880s.

    Long time ago: when I was born my father was 65. My mother ….. was surprised.

    [Indistinct, but about being very pro-American. Took the view we were two countries divided only by a common language.]

    And – possibly – united by the fact that the first Lady Member of the House of Commons was … an American – Nancy Astor.

    300 years of a male dominated Club – this sparky opinionated woman who took no hostages was controversial.

    As a new Member of Parliament, she was speaking on Agriculture, when – across the Chamber of the House of Commons – another Member shouted: “You know nothing about Agriculture …. how many toes has a pig?”.

    Nancy Astor never faltered: “How many toes has a pig? …. Take off your boots and count”.

    Great friend of Winston Churchill. One of those enduring friendships: they would defend each other against all foes – to the end. But when together, socially/privately. they would fight like ferrets in a sack.

    [Indistinct, but quotes from Winston Churchill].

    Of course, Churchill’s world has gone forever.

    Twenty years ago, until the collapse of the Soviet Union, we lived in a world of two super-powers. The end of Soviet Communism changed the world. If it had not collapsed, I doubt we would have seen the horrors and genocide of Bosnia and Kosovo.

    Nor, if it had not collapsed, would the free market be so dominant or such a target for terrorist groups.

    Today, we live in a world that is economically liberal – and yet this free-market liberalism – adopted by East and West alike – is very controversial. But why should that be so when it is geared to promoting wealth and well-being? Why should economic freedom and radical militancy have both grown at the same time?

    For many reasons, but two predominate: the mal-distribution of that growing wealth, and because the free market is bringing about changes that disturb the absolutism of old faiths.

    Here – exposed immediately – are the twin roots of terror: fear and hatred.

    History is instructive here. When Britain had an Empire, we were cordially detested. Hundreds of millions resented our power and envied our wealth. Even as they paid lip service to our face, the rejoiced if we were embarrassed or discomforted.

    Today, terrorists direct these same emotions against secure nations – and most obviously the United States as the most powerful political, economic and military nation in the world.

    Sometimes, there is a tendency to think of terrorism as if it were a global conspiracy. Certainly, some groups have widespread and growing tentacles. It is true that sometimes there is co-operation between terrorist organisations: to take two far-away examples, those in the Mindanao region of Southern Philippines almost certainly have links to Malaysian and Indonesian groups.

    And those in Southern Thailand seem to have sympathisers in Malaysia. Some terrorists are mercenaries for hire, unconcerned by any particular cause, and motivated only by hatreds and greed.

    Certainly, they are fanatics without conscience: “I have no regrets. I acted alone and on orders from God”. Thus, the extremist who murdered Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel.

    Sadly there are many like him.

    But there is no worldwide conspiracy. Mostly, terrorist groups are close-knit, relatively small organisations, with their own causes however perverted, and their own ambitions, however ill-conceived.

    Their causes may overlap – and occasionally merge – but they are not joined together in an over-arching organisation. It is important to understand this if we are to tailor a response to terror that will defeat it.

    But, since the rise of Al Qaeda, there is a layer of peripheral groups who share the same ideology, seek the same ends and use similar tactics.

    The Al Qaeda philosophy is out of kilter with mainstream Islam, especially the moderate Islam that is the basic character of the religion.

    Al Qaeda’s objective is the unification of the Islamic community around the world; its purification and the imposition of the most literal translation of strict Sharia Law.

    They wish to see the world divided between Islam – and everyone else. It is an isolationist philosophy, wholly out of tune with the modern world.

    Their tactics we know: distortion of the Koran, indiscriminate terror; and the call for a Holy War – Jihad – against all who oppose them. It is an unappetising menu and it cannot be ignored.

    For millions of people around the world, terror now looms as a widespread threat: the fear of global war has gone but it has been superseded by the fear of global terror.

    When Kipling wrote these famous lines:

    “East is East and West is West,
    And never the twain will meet”,
    he had not realised we would live in a global market, or face the common threat of terror.

    None of this is new. Terrorism is not new: it has been with us since ancient times; but now, like the economy, terror is globalising. Terrorism is not a Nation. Terrorism is Al Qaeda; Hezbollah, ETA, IRA, Hamas, Tamil Tigers, Kashmiri and Punjabi Separatists; Pattani United Liberation Organisation; GIA … the list goes on.

    Groups that are secretive, diverse, that hide their money, men and weapons hidden as effectively as they close their minds to any message but their own.

    Today, terrorism is a threat to much of the world. It is not targeted only against the Governments of the West. Think of the bombs in Bali. Or Jerusalem. Or the school siege in Moscow. Or Sarin gas in Tokyo. Or atrocities in Kashmir. The signature of mass-casualty terrorism can be seen worldwide.

    Most people find violence abhorrent and yet, terrorism has never been short of apologists. Over many years, it has grown bolder and more deadly. Many nations have suffered.

    But terrorism has not been effective in the post-Colonial world.

    When Spain, Portugal and Greece dumped Fascism – it was not because of terrorism.

    When Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe – it was not because of terrorist pressure.

    When Apartheid ended – Terrorism played no part in its demise.

    Terrorism can claim none of these victories – it exposes frustration but it often entrenches what it wishes to destroy: it is – ultimately – immoral and unsuccessful in achieving its aims. Ghandi was far more successful in effecting change than Bin Laden will ever be. As we look ahead, it is vital terror fails in Iraq, too – for a success for terrorism would boost it throughout the world and every corner of the world would suffer.

    What is the purpose of terror? It varies. For many Terrorist Groups the predominant aim is to radicalise Islam; to set Muslim against non-Muslim; to play upon prejudice; to foster hatred. For others, as in Northern Ireland say, or Thailand, it is to pursue specific political agendas or to unsettle democracies.

    In Northern Ireland, the intent was to absorb the North into a united Ireland. In Thailand it was to create a Separatist Buttani State in the Name of Islam. Always, the effect is to create chaos.

    And it does. The economic impact of terror is to de-stabilise markets. The political effect is to undermine Government by consent and civil order.

    So, whatever reservations there may be about how this War on Terror is being fought – these are sound reasons why it must be fought – and why it must be won.

    Terrorism and democracy are fundamentally opposed. They cannot co-exist. One must defeat the other. If democracy is to survive, terrorism must fall.

    The characteristics of modern terror are becoming more apparent each day. Terrorism has developed a particular flavour: it has become a tool of religious fanatics and a vehicle to destroy the free market system.

    One new phenomenon is the willingness of terrorists to sacrifice their own lives for their cause. We saw this in the 9/11 attacks in New York and have seen it since in Iraq and Palestine and London. A pattern is forming.

    The oxygen for terrorism is hatred: hatred of specific countries and their values or – sometimes, resentment of long-standing grievances that go back over hundreds of years. We know, too, that social and economic marginalisation encourages political radicalisation.

    As democracy and terrorism confront one another, one question must be asked at the outset: can a war against terror be won at all? Is it possible that such a shadowy concept as terrorism can be identified, isolated and defeated?

    With one caveat, my answer is – Yes, it can.

    The caveat is that history tells us terrorist groups are rarely entirely destroyed: they split and smaller groups, sometimes made up of the hardest of hardliners, replace them. It is not, therefore, a short conflict. But, over time, they can be beaten and the potency of their threat removed.

    So, if democracy can win, how can it do so?

    The answer to that question is complex. It involves action against existing terror groups now, and political measures to prevent such groups obtaining support today that will help them spread their contagion tomorrow.

    To win, all those nations threatened by terrorism need to co-operate. This coalition of the willing must embrace every country that is – or wishes to be – democratic. These States must work together to deny terrorists their safe havens, cut off their financing, and stem the flow of recruits. They must deny them their causes.

    And, to defeat the ideological threat they pose, we must understand the motives that drive them and re-educate the minds of those who have sympathy with them.

    We must accept we cannot win by military power alone, but concede that we cannot win without it. Terrorism has been growing for many years – too many years – before democracy began to retaliate effectively after the terrorists over-reached themselves with the attacks on New York.

    Now, many Nations are engaged in what will be a complex and protracted battle – not least of minds.

    International co-operation is vital: we will win more speedily if we co-ordinate action against terror; inhibit the movement of terrorists; outlaw them in every respect; attack money laundering; penalise States that are known to fund terror; act to reduce their supply of weapons; agree worldwide extradition of terrorist suspects. So much, I think, is obvious – although not all of it is done.

    But these measures are simply policing action against existing terror groups. Vital – but insufficient. We must go further. We must ask ourselves – what motivates terrorism? What encourages non-terrorists to tacitly support them? What can we do to make terrorism so totally abhorrent that terrorists are utterly isolated?

    The answers to these questions are not always palatable.

    In much of the world ideological radicalisation has fed the perception that the religion of Islam is under attack. Al Qaeda assert this every day. Radicals use this belief as a recruiting sergeant to fuel their cause. Events such as the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have fed this perception as has the failure to bring the Middle East Peace Process – or the Kashmir conflict – to a successful conclusion.

    The Radicals case is crude propaganda, and wrong, but it is effective. To rebut it, democracy must lessen the chance of demagogues exploiting hardship to promote terrorism. They must fight for the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured. Words alone will not do: they must accept obligations that illustrate the morality of democracy.

    One example stands out. Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US$ 2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US$ 1 per day. This cannot be acceptable. I daresay no-one here today would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of coffee from Starbucks. The rich nations do much to help. At present, the rich nations spend US$ 50 billion in total on overseas aid: an enormous sum. But less generous than it seems when you realise that Europe and America also spend US$ 350 billion on agricultural subsidies alone.

    To put that into context: we spend seven times as much subsidising cheap food for those already well-fed, as the whole world spends on all the needs of those with no food in their bellies at all.

    I believe that common humanity suggests that – if we are right to wage war on terror – and we are – then it is right to wage war on poverty and hardship as well.

    And it is in our interests to remove grievances, to cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”. Moreover, as we act, we foreclose on misery and hardship to come and undercut the message of hate that fuels radicalism.

    As we combat terrorism, we must realise that specific events or conflicts will always be used to promote the cause: a moment ago I cited the Middle East Peace Process as one such illustration of this.

    The Arab-Israel dispute is heartrendingly difficult to solve.

    Palestine has become the issue that is, above all, the poison in the well of relations between Islam and the rest of the world.

    The strong support that many countries have given to Israel over many years is based on admiration for a talented nation whose whole history is one of persecution. In my experience, support for Israel does not imply an anti-Palestinian bias.

    And yet, it is not seen that way: in the eyes of many in the Muslim world, pre-occupied with the truly pitiable living conditions of their fellow Muslims in Palestine, that support for Israel rankles.

    A solution would transform relationships. And it is vital for both sides. Israel will never be truly safe without security and recognition and acceptance by the Arab States: and Palestine needs a future. An active peace process is vital – without one there is a vacuum into which terror and mayhem step too readily.

    We have seen too much of that in recent years as a low grade war has simmered always at risk of becoming a full scale war. In Gaza, wicked men have encouraged foolish young men and women to become human bombs in Israel – and another such horror occurred just a few days ago.

    Often, this has provoked retaliation and counter retaliation. It has been a playground for the terrorist. Hope has been dashed for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

    Over the years, terror has so unsettled the political climate that trust has gone and a lasting solution is elusive. This plays entirely into the hands of the terrorist for it gives this dispute a much wider fuse: it is used to justify terrorism elsewhere.

    Sometimes, it has been difficult to see how this could ever be brought to a peaceful solution. It is depressing beyond belief – but it forces us to face the reality: in Palestine, as elsewhere, political progress remains the only way forward.

    I want to say something here about politics and terror. It is based on my own experience in dealing with the Provisional IRA.

    For years, the IRA had bombed and murdered in Northern Ireland – and on the mainland of the United Kingdom. Successive Governments reacted strongly and gave no ground to terrorism. But – whilst not conceding their objectives – we did look for a peace process to wean them off violence and to undercut their support in the community.

    It took a long time – and there were many setbacks – but it was right. We are now near a political settlement, without conceding the united Ireland that the IRA sought through bomb and bullet.

    The lesson is clear: to paraphrase Kennedy in another context, never negotiate from fear, but never fear to negotiate. It is tempting just to denounce terrorism. But if you wish to save lives, you must sometimes engage with them as well.

    Let me return to Palestine – for there is more we can learn from it. We can learn that economic revival is vital. For a land without hope breeds only resentment.

    We can learn that no-one should expect trust to spring forth from suspicion. We can learn it is never easy to wring out compromises from entrenched positions. And we can learn that – sometimes – international diplomacy is essential, where trust has collapsed. These lessons are eternal.

    And so is the fact that the leaders of democracies must never despair and – in their frustration – leave the future in the hands of the war mongers.

    What else can Governments do? A great deal. Islamic Governments can speak out about the true nature of Islam, in order to counter the message of the Radicals.

    All Governments can work together to encourage inter-faith dialogue. They can modernise the curricula in their schools.

    They can address marginalisation in their societies.

    All these actions are part of the anti-terrorist campaign: it needs to reach out far wider than military and security action alone.

    I spoke earlier of how our world – as a whole – has changed.

    We have a global economy. The political map is fluid. Each day, there are ground-breaking new developments in technology and communications.

    The speed of medical advance is bewildering. The demand for medical services infinite. Yet it will grow: the mapping of the human genome system will lead to an explosion of demand for preventative care and, where this is provided, to an increase in life expectancy.

    There is a pattern here in all aspects of our life. Science and technology is accelerating change which already takes place at break-neck speed.

    Are we to let all this be put at risk by terrorism?

    I think not. We all have too much to lose.

    Consider what has been achieved.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, no-one knew of blood groups, of hormones, of barbiturates. Vacuum cleaners and household detergents still lay in the future. Marie Curie had not discovered radium – nor had Einstein perfected his Theory of Relativity.

    There would have been amazement – even disbelief – at the news that Count Zeppelin was designing a machine that would fly. At that time, could anyone have ever imagined that – one day – it would be possible to breakfast in London and lunch in New York?

    The US is now the most powerful nation in the world – although the majority of economic growth has now tilted from West to East.

    The impact of all this is not simply on economics and politics.

    Children born today will see the conquest of the stars.

    They will live longer, see more, do more, know more than any earlier generation. They will see deserts bloom. See a genetic rebuilding of failing bodies.

    Live with technical innovations beyond our present imagination.

    It will be a world unrecognisable to their forebears.

    Are we to let this be undermined by radical terrorism, whose ideas are rooted in attitudes from many centuries ago?

    Surely not.

    CONCLUSION

    Against the enormous changes that are taking place, we need what I call “grown-up” politics. For one small gesture can create a global impact.

    Three and a half years on, we can see that the events of September 11th, 2001 are giving us a masterclass in consequences. We need politics that confronts the uncomfortable. Politics that rises above the short-term and the soundbite; politics that is long-term; politics that knows it no longer controls all the pieces on the chequerboard; politics that adopts common ideals and rejects common abuse; politics that is directed to issues and not to personalities. We need joined-up commonsense politics.

    [Indistinct, but about when Yeltsin was asked to describe the political situation in the former Soviet Union in one word he said “good”, and when asked to describe it in two words, he said “not good”].

    Our task in this generation is to look critically at our world and see it how it is – so we can try and shape how it could be.

    We certainly have the ability to do so. Only time will tell whether we have the wisdom – and the will – to channel that ability into action.

    Upon that outcome, lies our future – and one of the challenges is to confront and defeat the spectre of terrorism that threatens so much.

  • 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 Comments on the Osnabruck Mortar Attack – 29 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Osnabruck mortar attack, made during an interview in Lyon held on Saturday 29th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the IRA were behind the Osnabruck attack].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The presumption must be that it is the IRA, but that is not yet confirmed. But the nature of attack – mortar from a small van – suggests very strongly that it was them. Thankfully no-one was injured. I think what this does yet again, if it proves to be the IRA, as I suspect it is, is indicate that they are becoming more and more isolated.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had information from the security services or his own instincts about such an attack].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we unsurprised that there has been more, and it is conceivable there will be yet more. But one can never be certain quite when and how they will attempt this sort of exercise.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Sinn Fein/IRA had given up on the peace process].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is very difficult to say. The psychology of the way they work is always very difficult to judge. Certainly there are different views prevailing within the IRA, of that we are certain, and at the moment the predominant view seems to be that they believe they will make some progress by this sort of terrorist attack. That is a fatal misjudgement on their behalf, it is a misjudgement of the British Government, it is a misjudgement of the British people and it is a misjudgement of international opinion as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether internment would be considered].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a range of alternatives, I don’t wish to run through them and I am sure you will understand why not. But as far as matters like internment have been concerned, we have never ruled those out.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Sinn Fein could still re-enter the peace talks at this stage].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Every activity, every single attack divorces them further from the mainstream political parties and their willingness to accept them into the talks process. So the concept that they could enter into a range of bombing atrocities of the sort we have seen at Manchester, and now I think at Osnabruck, and then walk in the talks is plainly nonsense, nonsense because it wouldn’t be acceptable to the British and Irish governments, and nonsense because it would not be acceptable to the other parties either.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he felt personal despair at the situation].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not despair, certainly not, because the gains that have been made I think are very real. For the first time, the IRA are really becoming isolated in Northern Ireland, in the Republic of Ireland, they have lost the support that they had internationally, that certainly means they will losing a very large part of the funding. They are shrinking in the view of many people who previously supported them. That I think is extremely good news and from the IRA’s point of view they must be extremely worried about that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Sinn Fein and the IRA needed to be separate].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Sinn Fein take a rather curious position. On one hand they say we are nothing to do with the IRA – well that is patent nonsense – there is a great intermingling of membership right at the top, they are both sides of the same coin and anyone with the slightest knowledge of Northern Ireland and the whole affair knows that they well. If Sinn Fein say they are nothing to do with the IRA then really they are a very small part of the Northern Ireland political process and have no real influence. Their important is the fact that many people believe they do have influence over the IRA. Well if they do have influence over the IRA, they had better use it, and if they don’t use their influence then it is most unlikely that anyone is going to wish to see them enter into the talks.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Lyon – 29 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Lyon, held on Saturday 29th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, does the Osnabruck attack prove the peace process is over?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We don’t definitely yet know that it was the IRA. I think the presumption must be that it was the IRA, it was certainly the sort of mortar that they seem to have used in the past, so I assume that it was them. I think it just indicates the extent to which they are isolating themselves, isolating themselves from the process, isolating themselves from world opinion.

    QUESTION:

    Are they excluded from the process now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the practical point is that nobody is going to sit down with them. If they suddenly say, well we have now decided to stop, I think the other political parties, as well as the British and the Irish governments, are going to say, well how do we know that this is a complete stop, what are you playing at? They have had every opportunity to take a full part in the process. I hope that we are going to hear from Sinn Fein a complete and total condemnation of what happened, if it turns out to be the IRA. But we may have to wait for that.

    QUESTION:

    Will you be raising it today at the summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We discussed it last evening. I heard about it during the dinner we had and we discussed it last evening.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to cease British Government contacts with Sinn Fein now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We don’t have any practical contacts with Sinn Fein, except at local council level where there are elected local councillors and they play their part as part of the elected local process. There is no further contact beyond that.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you about George Gardiner?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a matter that is now behind us. I am glad it is behind us. We all have a job to do, everyone in the Conservative Party, to get together and win the next election, and that is clearly what we are going to do now.

    QUESTION:

    What about Mr Karadzic and continued Bosnian Serb defiance, can this summit do anything about that in particular?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will be discussing this this morning and I think it is a very important issue. There is no doubt that Karadzic has to go, I don’t just mean go and leave a place-man behind him, I mean he has to get out of the political process completely or, in my judgement, we cannot have satisfactory elections and we can’t proceed with the Dayton Accord satisfactorily. So I hope we are going to address that this morning. And I hope it will be clear that if Karadzic does not go, that there will be some response, and I think the right response would be sanctions, perhaps initially on Republic Srpska, perhaps also on the FRY, but certainly a response if it is clear that Karadzic isn’t genuinely going and leaving the process.

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (David Buchan, Financial Times):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

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

    QUESTION (Barry Wood, VOA):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Ian Black, Guardian):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (David Smith, Sunday Times):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Lyon – 28 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Lyon, held on Friday 28th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what difference will yesterday’s statement on terrorism make?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is now a clear understanding of the extent of terrorism, the extent to which it is an international problem. Clearly we can’t find all the solutions we would wish in a couple of days meeting. What we have agreed to do is to study the matter more carefully, to call more structured meetings at which Security Ministers and Foreign Ministers would attend, so clearly at a very high level from each government, and then examine detailed measures so that we can coordinate more closely against what is an international menace.

    QUESTION:

    What are you expecting from today’s discussions on the global economy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are a number of things we will be looking at today. Certainly we will be looking at the third world, we will be looking at how the IMF and other bodies can help in developing countries, and also looking at some of the international problems there have been on regulation over recent years.

    QUESTION:

    Are you surprised at the apparent shift in policy by Mr Blair on devolution?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He does seem to have buckled, that certainly does seem to be the case as far as a referendum is concerned. He has said on many occasions there won’t be a referendum. Now, at the first whiff of grapeshot there is to be a referendum. Well I think this is probably the first of very many retreats on this particular policy. It hasn’t been properly thought out, they don’t know how it is going to operate, they haven’t answered any of the serious questions and I believe it is now going to come under very close scrutiny indeed. So I think it is becoming a central item on the domestic agenda.

  • PMQT – 19 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Easington (Visit)

    Q1. Mr. Cummings: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to pay a visit to the Easington constituency.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I have at present no plans to do so.

    Mr. Cummings: What a pity–the right hon. Gentleman will never know what he is missing. Since I gave the Prime Minister notice of my question, has he had the opportunity to ascertain why the Department of Transport has rejected a submission by Durham county council for funds to provide access roads to the Dawdon and Fox Cover enterprise zones in my constituency? Would it not be common sense–[Interruption.]–for the Department of Transport to support those sites, which have been designated by the Department of the Environment, and for funds to be allocated to allow the building of access roads to the A19? Is this not a case–[Interruption.]–of one Government Department not knowing what the other is doing? Will the Prime Minister use his influence to get the problem resolved?

    The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question–all of it. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has confirmed the orders which will allow the Dawdon and Fox Cover road link to be constructed. As the hon. Gentleman will know, designated enterprise zones may be areas attractive to private sector inward investment and I am confident that the regeneration agencies in local partnerships will go some way to funding the link road, which I agree is the key to the regeneration of the area. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the designation of enterprise zone status will provide the impetus for the creation of up to 1,000 new jobs in the two zones.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Burden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Mr. Burden: The Prime Minister will no doubt remember that a few years ago the present Home Secretary was the Minister in charge of water privatisation. Does the Prime Minister recall what his right hon. and learned Friend said on 17 March 1989? He said that after privatisation

    “it will entirely disappear as a political issue. No one will be talking about it at all. It will be in the private sector, delivering the goods.”

    With 800 million gallons of water leaking away every day, and with the goings-on in Yorkshire, when the Prime Minister holds his crisis Cabinet meeting, where will he lay the blame for the lack of a water feel-good factor–on the privatised utilities or on the judgment of his right hon. and learned Friend?

    The Prime Minister: Water companies have a statutory duty to maintain supplies and we expect all companies to take the necessary measures to do that. Yorkshire Water has invested more than £1 billion in the past five years and will invest as much again over the next five years. Around two thirds of every pound in profit is reinvested for the benefit of consumers.

    On the general subject of water privatisation, more than £15 billion has been invested in modernising the industry since privatisation. That could not and would not have been possible without the industry’s access to private sector finance.

    Madam Speaker: Questions are getting too long. Let us have a short one.

    Mr. Allason: I shall be brief, Madam Speaker. In a week in which an Algerian suspect has been arrested on charges involving terrorism in France, many people have been distressed to realise that Hamas supporters in this country have been raising money for terrorism. It is especially distressing that they have all been receiving social security benefits in this country. Will my right hon. Friend put a stop to that?

    The Prime Minister: We are certainly determined to ensure that the United Kingdom is not a base for external support for terrorism anywhere in the world. I take to heart what my hon. Friend has said about Hamas. We must also look at the activities of other people who come here and actively conspire to commit terrorist acts, those who abuse the hospitality and protection available here and those who use this country as a base from which to cause trouble for other countries.

    Mr. Blair: In the wake of the Dunblane tragedy, does the Prime Minister agree that we should not prejudice the outcome of the Cullen inquiry? Will he confirm that all the issues concerning gun laws will come within the scope of the inquiry? Does he further agree that it would be sensible at least to begin to examine those issues now on an all-party basis? In particular, we should address, first, the question of handguns being kept in private homes. Secondly, we must address the concern expressed at the weekend by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland–my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)–and many others that currently the police have to prove why a firearms certificate should not be issued rather than the gun owner having to prove why it should.

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that Lord Cullen’s inquiry will be considering the subject of handguns. I can also confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has begun a review of existing gun controls and intends to offer every assistance to the inquiry under Lord Cullen. At my right hon. and learned Friend’s invitation, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) is already a member of the Firearms Consultative Committee, but I know that my right hon. and learned Friend would welcome the views of other parties in the House before he makes a decision on the entirety of the evidence.

    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that cutting off the electricity supply to any home in our country should be undertaken only as a last resort? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last year when electricity was a nationalised industry no fewer than 80,000 households had their electricity cut off, but that since then the figure has dramatically reduced and last year only 1,000 households out of the 24 million in England and Wales were disconnected? Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the privatised electricity companies for adopting what can perhaps most aptly be described as a more enlightened policy?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the changed circumstances following privatisation. There is no doubt that privatisation has proved to be the right structure for the industry, and the independent regulator’s promotion of competition is very much in the interests of the consumer.

    We have seen evidence of that in falling prices and, as my hon. Friend has vividly illustrated, in a better service for the many people who face difficulties.

     

    Q3. Mr. Wicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Mr. Wicks: As the Prime Minister has summoned his Cabinet colleagues to a crisis meeting tomorrow to discuss the mystery–to him–of the missing feel-good factor, will he consider having a meeting with the victims of negative equity, who number 1.7 million, or with representatives of the 8 million people who have become unemployed since the last general election? Does the Prime Minister accept that those people do not feel good, but that they feel bad and they feel let down by him and his Government?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed about the nature of tomorrow morning’s meeting. He really ought not to believe all–or, indeed, much–of what he reads in The Independent.

    I am delighted that the number of people in negative equity is falling. I am also delighted that fewer people are unemployed in this country than in any comparable country in Europe–in particular, those comparable countries which follow the policies that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, given the chance, would inflict on this country.

     

    Q4. Sir Ivan Lawrence: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his disapproval–expressed in the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference–of the power of the European Court of Justice to make new laws that are binding on nation states will be warmly welcomed? Is he further aware that he is not alone in Europe, but shares with others–such as the French Prime Minister–concern that the European Court is overstepping the mark? Will he assure the House and the country that at the IGC he will insist that the court’s powers are cut back, so that it does not become the supreme court of a federated superstate of Europe?

    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. and learned Friend that assurance. I heard what the French Prime Minister had to say, and I thoroughly approved of the way in which he said it.

    I am greatly concerned about the fact that the European Court’s interpretations have too often seemed to go beyond what Governments intended when the laws were framed. The court’s functioning can be improved; I believe that it must be improved, and we will seek improvements at the intergovernmental conference. As my hon. and learned Friend said, a federal Europe with the European Court becoming, little by little, a European supreme court is not a Europe that this Government can support.

    Mr. Clapham: In view of the fears expressed in the nuclear industry that the heavy running of the advanced gas-cooled reactors may have resulted in distortions which could cause a nuclear accident, and bearing it in mind that if the nuclear industry were privatised, commercial decisions could outweigh safety decisions, will the Prime Minister now shelve the idea of privatising the nuclear industry?

    The Prime Minister: We have sought advice, and we have been advised that privatisation of the nuclear industry would not in any way damage safety standards. That is clearly very important. Thus far, Nuclear Electric has an excellent safety record. I think that that is understood by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

     

    Q5. Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Mr. Waterson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this country has attracted more inward investment than any other country in the European Union, and more than France and Germany combined? Is that not the hardest possible evidence that the United Kingdom is well on its way to being the enterprise centre of Europe?

    The Prime Minister rose–

    Mr. Skinner: Don’t forget the social chapter and the minimum wage.

    The Prime Minister: I am in the happy position of being prompted by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to remind the House of the perils of the social chapter and the minimum wage. I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that they are indeed very damaging to the employment prospects of people in this country, and I look forward to his support in denouncing them at every opportunity so that his constituents may stay in work rather than out of work.

    As for the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), I certainly intend to keep the advantages that he mentioned at the forefront of the country’s mind. Our policy is to put British jobs and British business first. Investors are attracted here by low costs and flexible working practices; we intend to maintain those, and to improve them. [Interruption.] In case the hon. Member for Bolsover is in any doubt, I repeat: no social chapter and no minimum wage.

     

    Q6. Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 March.

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

    Mr. Marshall: If the Prime Minister is really concerned about the missing feel-good factor in areas such as Glasgow, will he agree to spend a day in the city with the new Lord Provost, Pat Lally, and talk to people and see for himself the severity of the problems caused by unemployment and poverty? If he were to do that, he might realise precisely why now is the time for a change.

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman would stand back and look at the prosperity and opportunity that now exists in Scotland, he would see a total sea change from the situation that we inherited from the last Labour Government. If he would seek two or three cities throughout the United Kingdom that have shown the greatest improvement in that period, his own city of Glasgow would be among them.

    Mr. Redwood: Will the Government overturn any European Court of Justice judgment which damages our social chapter opt-out?

    The Prime Minister: As I have indicated, we intend at the intergovernmental conference to try to prevent the misuse of health and safety legislation to bypass the social chapter opt-out. That is a matter that we shall address directly at the IGC, with the intention of achieving the aims set out by my right hon. Friend.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview at Heads of Government Meeting – 13 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview at the Heads of Government Meeting on Wednesday 13th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We’ve brought together heads of government from the whole of the region and far beyond. All of them expressing their belief that a great deal of progress has been made in the peace process. That the peace process still holds the key to a proper, secure, peaceful future for the people of the Middle East, and pledging themselves to do all they can to support the major players in achieving that. I think it has been very productive. We’re looking at problems. We’re deciding how we can deal with those problems. There will be further meetings convened within the next fortnight so that we can look at practical steps that will be helpful.

    I think it’s been a very productive session indeed this morning, and I think it was well worth doing. I think it’s been a very great success for everyone. It’s brought together people from all sorts of different parts of the world with a common interest in beating terrorism. The summit has produced a complete solidarity for the Middle East peace process, a complete determination to assist it proceed, and a determination to sit down together over the next few weeks and work out some practical measures to deal with the problems of terrorism. I think that is a success.

    QUESTION:

    What can Britain do to help against terrorism?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think every government can do something to help. Certainly, in practical measures as far as the Palestinian authority is concerned, we’ve provided a substantial amount of resources to help policing in the Palestinian area. We propose to help more. Other people will be doing exactly the same thing. What is needed is an international determination to root out and hunt down the terrorists and their sources of funding, and to make it clear to the pariah states that acts as the host and home for terrorism, that they are going to be complete international pariahs unless and until they stop it. What we saw here was an absolute determination upon those issues. I can’t remember a summit like this in the past.

    I can’t remember a summit that brought so many people together, from so many different points of view, with a single focus against terrorism. That’s what happened this morning, and it was well worth doing.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Terrorism – 25 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on terrorism, held during an interview in New Delhi on Monday 25th January 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked about the bomb threat].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have no means of knowing whether it is or not and I am not especially concerned about that. What I was seeking to do was to draw attention to the fact that governments around the world do need to cooperate generally against terrorism. It is an international problem, it will require international cooperation. That is the point I was seeking to make.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the extradition treaty would be passed in the House of Commons].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I believe so. There may be some opposition – I am not sure how much there will be – but I am quite confident there will be a clear majority for it in the House of Commons.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if India was stable enough for Britain to invest in].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I am, but far better than my view about that is the view of the businessmen who have come with me. Here you have a collection of some of the leading businessmen in the United Kingdom; they are confident not only to come but to contemplate large-scale investment over many years, so quite apart from my confidence their practical investment where they are prepared to put their money, their future and their companies in India, is an indication of the way things have changed and the prospects that people see for India in the future.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought Indian democracy would last].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What I am utterly confident about is the commitment of the government to what they would call – and I agree – secular democracy. That has been a tradition in India. Britain is the oldest democracy in the world, India is the biggest democracy in the world and I don’t have a shred of doubt that the Indian government are committed to that.