The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: United Nations

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Consortium for Street Children – 15 November 2016

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at Consortium for Street Children on Tuesday 15 November 2016.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It is hard to believe it is nearly a quarter of a century since I spoke at the launch of the Consortium. Today, it is a global network to protect children, and its growth and success is largely due to the dedication of many of the pioneers who are here this evening. They have taken us a long way.

    It is easy to see why they are so committed, and why I wished to be a part of their work 23 years ago. All children deserve care – not just some of them. They deserve a home, a family, security, education, adult guidance and – above all – love and affection. And yet – although we cannot be precise as to numbers – it is likely that, in 2016, 150 million children enjoy none of these benefits. They face the world alone, and can be found on every Continent. In every way, this is unacceptable.

    When children are not cared for – we have all let them down. By we – I mean governments and individuals. It is – to me – extraordinary that they have been left so far behind for so long. Extraordinary – and indefensible. It is as if they are invisible to the conscience of the world.

    Now – at last – we may be on the eve of a breakthrough that is long overdue. Next Spring, the United Nations will issue a General Comment – an unimaginative name for a vital advance. A General Comment is a legal framework that will offer guidance, and set out governments’ obligations to children and how our responsibilities to them should be met. This will provide – for the first time – an opportunity for civil society to hold policy-makers to account if they don’t take action: and for street children it could – and should – be Liberation Day.

    But, of course, the effect of this won’t be instant – for the children or anyone else. The scale of the task is immense, and what needs to be done will take a very long time. But, once begun – and with continued advocacy – it should develop its own momentum.

    On behalf of those street children everywhere who don’t know – and may never know – who their advocates have been, a heartfelt thank you to all those here this evening who have done so much to bring this about.

    However, important though this advance is, it’s not enough. Declarations don’t house the homeless or feed the hungry. But it most definitely marks the beginning of what we hope will bring about the end of this truly terrible – and unacceptable – human neglect.

    So we all need to make sure the General Comment is implemented fully. I say this because we have all seen how grudging the international response has been for refugee children – despite the horrors of Syria. This should make us realise that, although we may cheer this advance, we cannot yet celebrate a victory.

    Over 23 years, and across 130 countries, hundreds of thousands of deprived children have been helped. But we have so much more to do. Sometimes their enemy is not disinterest – but the lack of Government action or the wrong action.

    As a child in Harare told us about the police: “They treat us as animals, they can raid us and lock us up in a cell for three weeks and they would only give us dry bread for food.”

    The General Comment can be used by Governments to eliminate police round-ups of children who are loitering, or sleeping in public places.

    And, from a Mexican child: “There are street children who die, while others survive, because they don’t have the money to pay for a hospital.”

    The General Comment spells out to governments their obligations to end discrimination so that, for example, specialised health services and education are made available – free of charge – to street children.

    I could go on.

    In the past, UN action has sometimes been ignored. We must make sure this one is not. These neglected children are in dire need and, having put so much effort into getting this far, we must understand that there is still so much more to be done.

    Uruguay has – or is about to – announce that she will be an “Early Adopter” of the General Comment – which is tremendous news, but we must plead with/encourage/persuade others to do the same.

    So we still need pledges – of help, of expertise, of cash – to increase the momentum of our campaign. As a wise man once said – “Money is the root of all progress”: and that is certainly true of our own work.

    To those of you who already feel overwhelmed by all your other responsibilities, I would only say this: Many – most – of us present have children – or, in my own case, children and grandchildren. How would we feel if any one of them was condemned to live the life of a street child? Cold; hungry; and certainly alone; with no-one to turn to, and no-one to rely on. Even worse, without the most basic human need of all: hope.

    Would we not think we had failed? Yes, we would.

    So, in a sense, we are all parents of these lost children. And when we think of it in that way, we know we must help.

    So, thank you for what you have done, are doing, and will be doing to help those who cannot help themselves.

    Let me close with the following thought:

    When you go home this evening, you – like millions of others around the world – will walk into a warm and welcoming place. You may pour yourself a glass of wine … or two. You may look inside a well-stocked fridge for a snack. You may pop something into the oven. Or flip on the kettle to make a hot drink. You will then climb into a soft and comfortable bed; warm, well-fed and – above all – safe and secure behind a locked door.

    As I say, like millions of others. But with one key difference: as you turn the lights out you will be the ones who – by being here tonight – have helped some of the youngest and most vulnerable people in our world clamber out of despair to – hopefully – experience the same degree of comfort and security.

    And that, I hope, will lead to a very peaceful night’s sleep indeed.

    Thank you for being here, and joining our crusade for fairness to children: it is a cause to warm the conscience.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to United Nations General Assembly – 23 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly upon the 50th anniversary of its founding. The speech was held in New York on Monday 23rd October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Mr Secretary-General, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:

    The United Kingdom was present at the birth of the United Nations. Throughout its 50 years we have stood by the organisation and by our responsibilities in the Security Council. The United Kingdom today as we meet here is the largest contributor of troops to United Nations peacekeeping operations. British forces are serving in blue berets from Angola to Georgia with over 8,000 British troops in Bosnia alone, so I speak to you this morning as a strong supporter of the United Nations but also as a candid friend. I want the United Nations to be more successful in the future, it will be needed in tomorrow’s world and so change is necessary.

    The General Assembly first met amid the rubble and gloom of war-damaged London, but since then the world has been transformed. The United Nations has grappled with aggression, it has helped either to make or to keep the peace; it has worked for arms control and only days ago the United Kingdom, France and the United States agreed to sign the protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga. An end to nuclear testing is now in sight as we move towards a comprehensive test ban treaty in 1996.

    Throughout the last 50 years the principles of the Charter have stood the test of time, but now I believe we need to look ahead. The world is changing and I believe it is time for the United Nations to change with it. We need to confront challenges to peace and deal more effectively with the roots of crises. We need to encourage democratic and accountable government and protect the rights of the individual. We need to reduce poverty and protect the environment and we need to tackle the evils of international crime, drug trafficking and terrorism.

    Mr. President, that is a demanding agenda. To achieve it, we need a properly financed and efficient United Nations. I want change because I want the United Nations to succeed. Let me emphasise that point – I want change so that the United Nations can succeed.

    Some reforms have begun, many are needed. What is clear is that inaction is no longer an option. The threat to the future of the United Nations will not come from change, it will come from inertia.

    There are questions that we must address:

    Is the United Nations spread too wide? I believe it is.

    Is there too much waste and duplication between different bodies? I believe there may be.

    Are the priorities right for the 1990s? I am not yet convinced that they are.

    As we form new bodies for new problems, do we close down those no longer needed? Not enough, I think; there are some bodies we could usefully scrap.

    Can we improve the planning, managing and financing of peacekeeping? I believe that we can.

    And is our machinery for pre-empting conflicts and disasters as good as it should be? I believe not.

    There are other questions as well:

    Should the Security Council be enlarged? I believe that it should. The subject has been on the agenda for too long, it raises difficult questions but the issues are clear and the decisions are needed.

    Is the United Nations being efficiently managed? I am sure more could yet be done to apply the best modern practices with funding allocated to the most efficient programmes.

    Is perhaps too much time and energy being spent on ritual verbal battles brilliantly interpreted into six languages and then printed on the world’s highest paper mountain? Of course it is, we know that is the case.

    And last but most urgent of all, financial reform. The UN is in a financial crisis. It is not sustainable for member states to enjoy representation without taxation. Contributions should be paid promptly and in full and arrears should be cleared, but this must be accompanied by a new focus on efficiency and by modernising assessment to reflect the changing capacity of members to pay their dues.

    I agree very strongly with the Secretary-General that we should have a special session of the General Assembly next year to address these issues.

    Mr. President, I ask these questions because they need answers. I dare say some of them are controversial but we need frank and honest answers now because the world needs the United Nations as much today as at any time in the past, but a United Nations that works, a United Nations using today’s methods to address tomorrow’s needs, a United Nations that shows its worth to the taxpayer in all our countries for it is they who pay the subscriptions to the United Nations. In that way, I believe we can capture and can justify popular support for our organisation.

    Today, Mr. President, we face difficulties that we must overcome. At this commemoration, my hope is that we will find the will to do so. [Applause].

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Objectives

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

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

    I see four specific objectives for our meeting:

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

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

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

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

    UNPROFOR and Aid Agencies

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

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

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

    By last year, that figure had fallen to 7.

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

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

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

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

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

    Deterring aggression and achieving diplomatic progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Today I hope we can give that a new impetus.

  • PMQT – 13 July 1995

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Madam Speaker: We now come to Question 5.

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

    Madam Speaker: Yes, Question 5.

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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 Doorstep Interview in Halifax (I) – 16 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Halifax on Friday 16th June 1995.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, on the economic front, what has this G7 summit achieved?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is quite a thick stub of real substance in the midst of what has been agreed over the last couple of days. If I can just take some of the things at random. I think that the proposals at the United Nations, to have a look at the reform of the United Nations and reform of the way the financial institutions operate, in essence to try to encapsulate it, to try and make sure there are no more Mexicos, with all the knock-on effects that that had, I think that is a real area of substance. The agreement to have a second Jobs Conference, similar to the one in Detroit, and to concentrate particularly on a whole series of remedies that the UK have proposed in the past, that the OECD have set out, I think that is a very substantial move forward. I think there are a range of areas like that, I will take them individually in questions rather than run through them all, you have seen the communique, but I think there is a lot in it.

    QUESTION:

    Hasn’t the G7 been hijacked by the tactics of the Bosnian Muslims?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think so. Clearly we have spent a lot of time discussing what was happening in Bosnia, a matter of very great concern to us, but to say it was hijacked I think is wrong because the substance is still there, the agreements have still been made and as a result of that things will occur that otherwise would not have done. So no it has not been hijacked but it is a very important matter.

    QUESTION:

    What about this disagreement you have had with Chancellor Kohl over the Brent Spar, how seriously damaging to you think that is to your relationship?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Even the best of friends don’t agree on every occasion. On this occasion we have taken a different view of this particular matter. I think that the way of disposing of Brent Spar is in accordance with international agreements, it is in accordance with safety, it is in accordance with logic. I think the companies are right to dispose of Brent Spar in this way and I have indicated that that is my view.

    QUESTION:

    They have decided to delay the sinking of it, do you agree with that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not a matter for me. I am not aware that that is the case, no doubt that is being discussed elsewhere. But I have been asked whether I agree that that is a credible way to dispose of the Brent Spar. I do. Indeed if you consider the environmental alternatives, to try and bring the Brent Spar, something of that size, in shore, with the danger of it breaking up as it came in shore, might well be a greater environmental danger and I think people really need to consider that.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think there will be a total pull-out on Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not in favour of a total pull-out. At the moment events are still developing in and around Sarajevo, and conceivably elsewhere. But at the moment I am not in favour of a total pull-out and I simply reiterate the point I have made many times before, if the United Nations Protection Forces were forced to come out of Bosnia as a whole I believe that would be disastrous, it could happen but I believe that would be disastrous. It would open up the way to a much wider and more bitter level of fighting than anything we have seen before, a lot of people would undoubtedly be killed. And anyone who believes that the major Western states could just walk away from Bosnia with having no interest to what the wider impact of that war would be, I think is very badly mistaken. Whether we like it or not, all of us have an interest there, I hope we can stay and minimise the fighting, minimise the killing and seek a political settlement, with UNPROFOR remaining in Bosnia. But even if events conspire to force them out, we would still have to retain an interest in it and I think a military interest in it as well.

    QUESTION:

    Are you pleased that Mr Portillo and Mr Heseltine have both backed you today as both Party leader and Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have been here, I have no idea what has been happening as far as that is concerned at home. I have been here looking at the agenda we have been discussing, we have been discussing Russia and a whole range of other things and I certainly have not had my mind on that.

    QUESTION:

    The 1922 Committee say that you need to sharpen up your act, whatever that means, is there anything you think the government can do to achieve that and do you think you will still be leader of the Conservative Party after this November?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me take those points in the round. If the events of the last week have persuaded people that I set out a course some time ago, that I believe that to be the right course and that I am not going to be pushed off that course, then perhaps the events of the last week have served some good purpose. I have set out a course, I do believe it is the right course, it is a long term course, it is sensible, it is pragmatic, it has been carefully thought through and it is not going to be changed. But if anybody wants to know where we are going, we are going in the direction I have set out and I have no intention of moving away from it. I hope that is clear enough for you. OK?!

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Chirac – 10 June 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Jacques Chirac, held in Paris on Saturday 10th June 1995.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me first of all to thank the British foreign and defence journalists who are present here today following our conversations and I would like also to begin by saying it is very pleasant to have such conversations among friends.

    I will not surprise you in saying that our conversations were very cordial and allowed us to raise a certain number of issues. First of all regarding the Cannes Summit preparations and a number of European issues, in particular the preparation to the run-up of the Intergovernmental Conference in 1996. It is true to say that we have a number of approaches and views in common, in particular with respect to the role of the Council and that also of the association of Parliament in contributing to the work being done in Europe. So on those issues we have common approaches and common ground.

    [small section inaudible] and indeed the recent initiatives have been taken in common and, as you know, were approved yesterday by the Fifteen. We request the immediate release and freeing of hostages; we want considerable diplomatic efforts to be deployed and in particular with respect to the appointment of a mediator, Mr Carl Bildt; and in particular also the setting up of the Rapid Reaction Force which will allow for additional support to be given to the peace-keepers in the field. As you know, the Rapid Reaction Force will be made up primarily of British and French troops, to which will be added a Dutch contingent and possibly contingents from two or three other countries.

    With respect to transatlantic relations we were thinking along the same lines, namely the strengthening of Euro-American relations with respect of course for the identities of both sides.

    Regarding bilateral matters, there are no major difficulties there, we both want to strengthen our cooperation in a variety of different fields, in particular the military field.

    With respect to future meetings we have decided that we will meet on 29 July, probably in France, on the occasion of a visit that the Prime Minister will be paying to France at that time. And on 30 October next we will hold the next Franco-British Summit, which will be convened in London, and preceded by a dinner and some evening entertainment on the evening prior to the 30th.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Jacques, thank you very much. The President has set out much of the detail of our discussions this morning and I will simply say that I share the views that he has expressed.

    We have had some two hours of talks and my expectation that they would be very wide-ranging and very worthwhile have not been disappointed, they were an excellent exchange.

    Let me turn particularly to the area of Bosnia where we both have a very great concern about present events. Throughout the last three years, Britain and France together have assumed the lion’s share of UNPROFOR’s burden in Bosnia. In Bosnia British troops serve under French command, French Marines and French Legionnaires serve under the British command, and that is the true reality of European defence cooperation. And I would like to pay my one tribute to the 39 French troops who have lost in Bosnia over the last 3 years. We admire what they have done very much and I very much respect also the very brave action of French troops on the bridge at Sarajevo.

    Let me remind you once again precisely why British and French troops are in Bosnia. We are there for humanitarian reasons, we are there to save lives and feed the starving. We are also there for strategic reasons. I believe it is a vital role for British and French troops to help contain a conflict which, if it is not contained, has the potential to ignite the whole of the Balkans.

    That is why, for so long as British troops can carry out their duties without undue risk to their lives, I shall want to see them continue to play their role in UNPROFOR. But let me add also, if the warring parties make it impossible for the United Nations to carry out their mandate, then of course we would have to consider withdrawal. But that is not, emphatically not, our wish.

    Let me make it very plain. If it became necessary for the United Nations Protection Forces to leave, and I repeat I very much hope that will not be the case, but if it were to happen then I think everyone in Bosnia, Serb Croat or Muslim, would suffer as a result of their withdrawal.

    Britain and France are now cooperating very closely indeed, the cooperation is on a daily basis at political level, at military level, at diplomatic level and at other official levels. And we have three immediate tasks. Let me set out all of them;

    – the first of them is to use the reinforcements which both our countries are sending to help UNPROFOR do its job more effectively. And I announced yesterday that the 5,000 troops of our Airmobile Brigade have now been given orders to deploy. They will take effect as soon as some logistical problems with the United Nations are concluded;

    – secondly, let me make it clear that they are not going there as an aggressive force to make war, they are going there to keep the peace. But British troops have always responded robustly if they are attacked and they have responded robustly to provocation. They will continue to do that. The second task is to make clear to the Bosnian Serbs that they need to release all of the hostages unconditionally and they do their cause no good whatsoever by hanging on to them;

    – and the third task of course is to stay focused on the overriding objective and that must remain a negotiated settlement.

    Let me just briefly indicate the other areas that we discussed. We had a very worthwhile exchange on the forthcoming European summit at Cannes. We discussed a range of matters – unemployment, subsidiarity, deregulation, competitiveness and the launch of the Study Group. There were no difficulties of any significance between us in those issues.

    The one area of difference that the President mentioned is an area we are examining and I hope and expect we will reach an agreement before Cannes. We have shared objectives on aid flows and different mechanisms to meet them but we will reach an accommodation about that I hope.

    We found ourselves in agreement on the objectives for the G7 summit at Halifax and similarly we found ourselves in agreement on a range of matters related to transatlantic relationships.

    So let me just say, before we invite your questions, how much I have enjoyed this visit and how much I appreciate the hospitality that has been given. It has been a very good occasion for Britain, a very good occasion for France and I think rather a good occasion for Europe as well.

    QUESTION:

    I have two questions. You talked about the convergence of British and French views with respect to the 1996 conference, but I would like to know whether there are no divergences here. In particular I am thinking of the issue of qualified majority voting on the Council of Ministers? My second question has to do with the issue of transatlantic relations, I would like to know what you feel about the proposal made, in particular by Sir Leon Brittan, with respect to a transatlantic free trade zone?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Taking your question on voting and the qualified majority system, these are matters that have to do with how to implement the decisions that will be taken at the IGC and I think it is too soon for us to consider them here. In fact we did not talk about such matters, it will be up to our experts to give consideration to these issues. However, having said that I do not expect there to be any difficulties, in fact I would go so far as to say that we will be in agreement on that.

    On your question with respect to the free trade zone mooted by Sir Leon Brittan, anything we feel that can facilitate trade is necessarily positive, is necessary to be supported. France of course is paying great attention to the proper establishment, the getting going of the World Trade Organisation before any free trade measures are taken along the lines of those suggested. That being said on the general principle, there is certainly no objection and no disagreement.

    QUESTION:

    I wonder if I could ask President Chirac, and perhaps a special request for a response in English if that would be all right? Did the two of you agree that the judgement is that the Rapid Response Force is now the last chance for keeping the UNPROFOR troops on the ground in Bosnia? And secondly, what sort of representations will you be planning to make to President Clinton?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think anyone is in the business of saying the Rapid Reaction Corps is the last chance, that is not the purpose of the Rapid Reaction Corps, the Rapid Reaction Corps is there to facilitate the work that goes on, to protect the troops that are there to enable them to carry out the work that they are doing. It is not there to wage an aggressive war. It is there to protect people, to respond where appropriate and to try and ensure the work that goes on. So, far from being the last chance, it is intended to ensure that the present work continues for some time. The solution to the problems of Bosnia is not going to be found on a battlefield, the solution is going to be found in a political settlement and a search for a political settlement will go on.

    The advent of a Rapid Reaction Corps and the reinforcement of the United Nations troops is a very important event indeed, in keeping the work that is going on on the ground in Bosnia in being and ensuring that it continues. But I don’t think either of us would see that as a last chance at all. We will continue to seek for both the diminution of fighting, the maximum amount of humanitarian aid, the maximum amount of protection for our troops and we will continue to push very hard for a sensible pragmatic political outcome to this dispute.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    We share the same point of view on these matters. The issue of the objectives and aims that have motivated the establishment of this Rapid Reaction Force is something we totally agree on. I note furthermore that neither President Clinton nor President Yeltsin have expressed any reservations about this initiative. You see there was a situation that simply could not last, The UNPROFOR troops have been deployed throughout the territory and they are stretched very thin with relatively limited military means at their disposal and we have seen the emergence and rise of a certain number of phenomena, aggressive phenomena and situations in which these troops have had to face humiliation and that is something we could not accept. The Rapid Reaction Force is a means of ensuring that our troops never again find themselves in a situation whereby they are humiliated. They can fight, they may unfortunately be injured or even sadly killed, but one thing they will never have to face again is humiliation.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Prime Minister, in the light of your discussions this morning and what we have heard from both of you, do you feel that you have a new ally in Paris, particularly on European Union affairs, and that perhaps Britain is not as alone on those affairs as it was in the past.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Paul, if I didn’t know better I would think you were being mischievous. I have always found in my relationship with the French government and with the President of France that both sides to the discussions speak their mind plainly and clearly. We are concerned about the way Europe develops and we are concerned about the individual interests of Britain and France in Europe. I think that was the case with President Mitterrand, I think it is the case now with President Chirac, I have found our discussions this morning very amiable. There are many areas of very great agreement, some of them have been very evident I think in the discussions we have had this morning and in the questions indeed that you have asked this morning. There may be areas at some stage in the future where there are divergent views, as there are between any two countries you care to name in the European Union. But I do think that the relationship between Britain and France is a very ancient relationship. On the really important matters we tend to be on the same side more often than not. I think that is going to remain the case, I cannot promise you we will agree on every issue and neither can President Chirac.

    I can say the relationship is very good and where we differ it will be on matters of political substance, it will not be a matter that will bite deeply and damagingly into the British/French relationship.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I would like to add one thing in respect to the construction of Europe. I believe that the construction of Europe, in other words the strengthening, the permanent constant strengthening of the links between European countries, is a sine qua non for the future existence of Europe. Franco-German relations are therefore necessary for the construction of Europe but not in themselves sufficient. We cannot possibly build Europe without Britain. It is therefore essential that we understand the specific problems that Britain faces. And I believe that France can play an important role in finding the necessary impetus and synergy which is necessary to the building of Europe between all European partners and of course in particular France, Germany and Britain.

    QUESTION (James Robbins, BBC):

    President, in the discussions at Cannes on technical preparations for a single currency, should the matter of a name for the single currency be discussed, should a name be decided at a fairly early stage so that European citizens have an idea of what this thing would be called. What would be your preferred choice? The Prime Minister told the House of Commons in London this week that arguably circumstances might never arise in which it would be right for Britain to join the single currency, was that a disappointment to you?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    On the first point I would say that we are not on the agenda of the Cannes Summit intending to discuss the name of the single currency. And on your second question, I know and I understand the British analysis and view of the single currency. And there is at least one point on which John Major and myself agree. In other words, the consequences of a single currency, the impact of a single currency which would bring together perhaps 5 or 6 or even 7 Community country members, on the economic situation and status of the Union as a whole, in other words the Union as made up of member states that would not have a single currency, have been insufficiently thought about and insufficiently studied. And therefore it is necessary to examine the situation very objectively and as speedily as possible. I for one of course am in favour of France respecting and upholding the commitments it made under Maastricht and France will of course make all necessary efforts to meet these commitments and indeed meet the terms set for the launching of a single European currency under the Maastricht Treaty and under the provisions of the treaty, in other words by 1st January 1999.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me add just a point about this because this is a matter that the President and I discussed at some length this morning. The unspoken presupposition in much of the early thinking about a single currency was that everybody would be able to join at the same time. But of course the European Union is changing and it is expanding and there are new members coming in, so it is no longer a practical proposition to assume that every member of the European Union would be able to enter a single currency, if it wished to, at the same time. And as the President said, one has to look at these realities and see what they might mean. They raise very important questions, not just for monetary union itself but for other aspects of working of the European Union as a whole. And I personally find it a breath of fresh air that these important matters are finally coming to the fore and will be examined, and I look forward to the examination.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the 1995 Welsh Conservative Party Conference – 9 June 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Welsh Conservative Party Conference, held in Llangollen on Friday 9th June 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Bosnia

    Mr Chairman, I’d like to turn first to the remaining Royal Welch Fusiliers – and the Royal Air Force military observer – still being held hostage in Bosnia.

    That is where the thoughts of many people in Wales will be until they are safely home.

    Of course, we’re all relieved that so many of their colleagues have now been released unharmed.

    But let us be clear. These are impartial peacekeepers who should never have been seized in the first place.

    To hold just one hostage, just one peacekeeper – let alone dozens – is despicable.

    No reputable army would have contemplated doing it.

    The leaders of the Bosnian Serbs know that they will be held personally responsible if they let any harm befall our men.

    They should release them unharmed.

    Release them unconditionally.

    And release them immediately.

    Mr Chairman, I spoke this morning to the Commander of the First Royal Welch Fusiliers in Gorazde, Colonel Jonathan Riley.

    Let me tell you about the vital work the Fusiliers are doing.

    One company of the Fusiliers is at Bugojno – a base in Central Bosnia I visited last year.

    There British soldiers helped to establish a ceasefire between the Muslims and the Croats 15 months ago.

    The Fusiliers are making that ceasefire work.

    They and their colleagues are patrolling 140 miles of the old battle lines.

    They are helping former enemies to live together, work together, and rebuild their lives – in peace.

    Just a few months ago people there were killing each other in their thousands.

    Today, thanks to British and other United Nations soldiers, across a large area fields are being planted and children are playing safely and happily.

    In Gorazde, where three companies of the Fusiliers are stationed, there are about 45 thousand people.

    United Nations agencies have been supplying them with food and medicine.

    But Gorazde is now under heavy bombardment. Serb artillery is ranged against a large force of Bosnian government infantry.

    But the Welch Fusiliers are facing these difficulties with great determination and are in good spirits, as Colonel Riley told me.

    Let me give you just one example of the work the Fusiliers have done.

    On 23rd May, a little over a fortnight ago, two of the Fusiliers’ armoured cars were escorting an aid convoy.

    They came under heavy fire from the Bosnian Serb army. They fired back in self defence – as is their right.

    Their vehicles were hit, but they came away without casualties.

    On its way back, the patrol stopped to help a heavily pregnant Bosnian woman – and the Royal Welch Fusiliers delivered her baby and took mother and child to safety.

    Mr Chairman, life in Gorazde for the Royal Welch Fusiliers is arduous, uncomfortable and at times dangerous.

    But they have done a superb job.

    And I believe we should be very proud of them.

    I want the UN forces in Bosnia to be able to go on doing their job, so long as they are not facing unacceptable risks.

    We have a clear duty to save lives and prevent mass slaughter in our own continent.

    Yet there is an even stronger reason for us to have our troops there.

    There are war memorials across Wales and throughout the United Kingdom bearing the names of the millions who died in World Wars which began in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.

    In the years before 1914, and again in the 1930s, Britain paid a heavy price for the mistaken view that events hundreds of miles away had no importance to us.

    By the time we learned that we could not turn our back on the fate of fellow Europeans, it was too late.

    So the British troops who are in Bosnia today are upholding a vital national interest – the preservation of stability in Europe.

    But while they are there they must have all the protection we can give them in discharging their duties.

    That is why the Government has decided to send reinforcements to Bosnia.

    It was a hard decision.

    But I am sure that it was also the right decision.

    One thousand men – an armoured engineer squadron and two artillery batteries – are already on their way.

    And I can confirm today that, as soon as details are finalised with the United Nations, over 5,000 men of the 24th Air Mobile Brigade will be deployed to Bosnia.

    They will form half of a new UN Rapid Reaction Force at the disposal of General Rupert Smith and his fellow commanders.

    They will provide additional protection for UN forces – and our British troops – so that they can defend themselves. And so that they can respond more robustly if they are attacked.

    But I must make this clear: British troops are not there to fight a war.

    It is possible the warring parties might make their job impossible.

    And, if they do, we might be forced to withdraw those troops. I don’t want that to happen, but it could.

    That would have dire consequences for everyone in Bosnia and grave risks for the whole region.

    Mr Chairman, that is why we should give our total backing to our forces.

    We ask much of our young soldiers.

    They are performing magnificently.

    And they should know that this Government will do whatever is necessary to provide them with the protection they need and the security they deserve.

    The Nation

    Mr Chairman, the Conservative Party has always had a strong vision of the right future for our country.

    Throughout the last twenty years we have set the agenda for Britain.

    The Right to Buy.

    Trade union reform,

    The free market.

    Strong defences.

    Membership of Europe.

    Tests in schools.

    Punishing not rewarding crime.

    Time and time again it has been policies which have been vindicated by events.

    And yet, all the time, our opponents have fought our ideas ferociously, and then been forced belatedly – and half-heartedly – to accept them.

    We have been successful in determining the terms of debate in this country because:-

    – our fundamental convictions haven’t changed;

    – our instincts and values have always been close to those of the British people;

    – and we have always put the national interest first.

    Many of the details of our agenda over the last 15 years are nearing completion.

    Now we are ready once again to move the terms of the political debate forward.

    While our opponents modernise themselves – up to a point – by catching up with our agenda of the 1980s, we will be moving ahead to shape the agenda of the 21st century.

    Let me remind you of the five key themes which we will pursue in building a stronger nation.

    They can be summarised by saying that we will work for:

    – A Nation of Enterprise and Prosperity;

    – A Nation of Opportunity and Ownership;

    – A Nation of Law and Order;

    – A Nation of First Class Public Services;

    – A Sovereign Nation.

    It is on the fifth of those themes – a sovereign nation – that I wish to concentrate today.

    Wales – the economy transformed

    A strong nation needs first and foremost to have a strong economy.

    Here in Wales the economy has been transformed by Conservative reforms.

    Wales is now more competitive.

    – There are 16 per cent more businesses in Wales today than in 1980. Self-employment is up by 40 per cent.

    – Wales has secured nearly £7 billion of inward investment in the last decade – creating or securing over 120,000 jobs.

    – With only 5 per cent of the UK’s population, Wales consistently attracts between 10 and 20 per cent of the UK’s investment from overseas.

    The fruits of this new prosperity may not be obvious to opposition politicians with their gift for competitive whingeing.

    But they’re clear for people with eyes to see – and clear right around Wales.

    – Home ownership has soared from 59 per cent in 1979 to 72 per cent – higher than anywhere else in the UK.

    – For the first time in decades unemployment in Wales is down to the UK average – and it’s falling steadily.

    – Ownership of consumer durables has soared. Half of households in Wales now own a microwave. 69 per cent – more than two thirds – have a video. And 72 per cent – nearly three quarters – have a car.

    Mr Chairman, what created this unparalleled prosperity?

    It wasn’t socialism.

    It wasn’t Liberalism or nationalism.

    It was Conservatism.

    And it is only Conservatism that will preserve that prosperity – and expand it.

    Wales has changed. It’s no longer famous as the home of dying trades, outdated technologies and clapped-out union attitudes.

    Today it has tomorrow’s industries, not yesterday’s problems.

    Now Wales exports televisions, computers, and compact disc players.

    It is a major tourist destination. And a growing financial centre.

    That is the strong and secure future for Wales under the Conservatives.

    Europe and the Social Chapter

    But our opponents have a very different approach.

    Even though Labour copy our rhetoric daily, there remain many differences between their policies and ours.

    But one difference is fundamental.

    At heart Labour believes that Britain should steadily progress down the road which leads to a federal European superstate.

    The piecemeal erosion of our sovereignty.

    The step by step construction of a United States of Europe.

    Mr Chairman, that is not the right way for a successful Europe.

    It’s not what I believe the people of Europe want. Or the people of the UK. Or the Party.

    And it is not what this Government will ever accept.

    We believe in an effective Single Market with rules fairly applied to all.

    A Europe which strengthens its competitiveness instead of undermining it.

    A Europe built around the free co-operation of sovereign nation-states.

    A Europe which, as it enlarges, recognises that it must be more flexible and cannot become too rigid.

    We will not ride on an escalator that takes us where we do not want to go.

    We will battle for the right sort of Europe – and Britain’s interest in it – in all circumstances and at all times.

    That is why, so long as I am Prime Minister, our opt-outs and our right to say no will not be negotiable.

    Labour’s misguided approach to Europe is summed up by their devotion to the Social Chapter.

    Of course, these days they are happy to use the language of markets, competitiveness, and of success.

    They don’t understand it, but they use it.

    But they talk more loudly and enthusiastically about their commitments to the Social Chapter and the minimum wage.

    Those policies are the ball and chain which Labour would put round the ankle of British business – and thereby cripple our chances of winning in the world’s markets.

    Mr Chairman, I fought to keep Britain out of the Social Chapter.

    I did so at Maastricht even though I was outnumbered on this issue by eleven to one.

    Monsieur Delors lamented that by doing so I had made Britain a “paradise” for foreign investment.

    What has happened since has justified his judgement – and mine.

    For the Social Chapter is not a fixed menu of measures.

    It’s a mechanism which would allow Brussels to foist an endless stream of directives on British business. And just look at some of what we have avoided in the last two years alone, thanks to our opt-out.

    The Works Council Directive.

    The Parental Leave Directive.

    The Part Time Work Directive.

    They might sound harmless.

    But they’re not. Together they would blunt the competitive edge of British businesses.

    Just those three directives alone would cost our companies almost £2 billion a year.

    But don’t just look at the statistics.

    Listen to what foreign companies say. And do.

    Companies like Black and Decker. They’ve switched their factories from Germany to Britain.

    Companies like Daimler Benz. Their Chairman has warned that his company may do the same unless the German government sorts out the problem of rising social costs.

    Companies like Nikko, a large Japanese bank. Their Deputy Chairman has said that firms invest in Britain because of our lower employment costs.

    Companies like Sabena, the national airline of Belgium. They say that they cannot compete with British airlines because

    Belgian social costs are almost three times higher than in Britain.

    So, Mr Chairman, when some suggest that we should surrender the huge competitive advantage which we have gained by staying outside the Social Chapter, my answer is simple.

    That opt-out was hard-won.

    And it is not negotiable.

    And while the opt-out stays in the UK, foreign investment will stay in Wales.

    That’s a Conservative promise that no other party can match.

    But what is Labour’s reaction to this enormous competitive advantage which Britain has gained from sixteen years of Conservative government?

    Do they queue up to praise it?

    Do they promise to build on it?

    Do they even to undertake to protect it?

    No, of course not.

    Labour’s pledge is to do everything they can to eliminate that competitive advantage as fast as possible.

    The Labour leader has said that one of the first acts of a Labour Government would be to sign up to the Social Chapter. That would be a huge and wholly unnecessary blow to British business and British jobs.

    And Mr Chairman, when it really matters, I don’t believe that the British public will vote for a party which is offering them the fastest sell-out since the Christmas sales.

    The Minimum Wage

    Then there is Labour’s commitment to a minimum wage.

    Of course the idea sounds attractive. Who would not want to help people on low incomes.

    But it is a delusion.

    The only way to make people better off is to strengthen the economy, raise skill levels and cut costs.

    That is what we have been doing.

    It is the reason why Britain has seen unemployment fall further and faster in the last two years than anywhere else in Europe.

    It is down by 650,000 since 1992.

    And it is still falling by around 600 a day.

    Falling unemployment is the most effective anti-poverty measure of all.

    And taking measures that destroy jobs is the fastest route to impoverishing a nation.

    Yet that is precisely what a minimum wage does.

    And it would be the low income jobs which the low-skilled, the part-time and the young depend on – either as the first rung on the ladder or as a useful supplement to the family income which would be lost.

    Mr Chairman, we must continue to tell people the truth about the Minimum Wage.

    We must not let them by seduced by its friendly sounding name.

    Under its sugar coating lies the bitter reality that it will cost people their jobs.

    Labour and Devolution

    But, Mr Chairman, of all Labour’s ideas the one which would cause most damage to Wales – and to the United Kingdom – is their plan to tamper with our nation’s constitution.

    Those who want to rip it up should realise that it is not some patchwork quilt that can be stitched together in a different way.

    It’s not a mix’n’match assembly kit.

    It is the product of generations.

    A union that has weathered trial and tribulations because we realise that, united, we are stronger, divided we are weaker.

    No wonder then that we have learned today that a clear majority of the British people – and even most Labour supporters – believe that Labour’s devolution plans would weaken the United Kingdom.

    They are right to think that.

    For Labour’s plans would potentially set each part of the United Kingdom against the others.

    That is why the last time this poison pill was offered, the Welsh people rejected devolution overwhelmingly.

    And that is why they would be wise to do so again.

    Frankly, Labour’s plans for a Welsh assembly are an insult to Wales.

    They carry no conviction.

    They are the left-overs of their plans for Scotland.

    There would be a Parliament at Westminster, a Parliament in Edinburgh, but only an assembly in Wales.

    Now, I think a Parliament in Edinburgh is a mistake.

    But Labour don’t.

    So, if it is right for Scotland, why isn’t it right for Wales?

    Why are Labour taking Wales for granted when it has so often been loyal to them? Let me tell you.

    Labour want a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh for their own party political reasons.

    They are afraid of the Scottish Nationalists.

    But a Scottish Parliament, with wide powers including the power to raise more taxes, ought to mean fewer Scottish MPs at Westminster.

    That would mean fewer Labour MPs.

    So to justify keeping Labour’s over-representation at Westminster they have cooked up the idea of a Welsh Assembly and Regional Assemblies around England.

    It’s a blatantly self-interested partisan policy to benefit the Labour Party.

    So the people of Wales would have foisted upon them a whole new layer of bureaucracy, and a whole new class of politicians, just so that Labour can protect their narrow party political interest in Scotland.

    It is a shameful spectacle – and Labour deserve to be punished for it by the electorate.

    In England, Labour’s desperate attempt to find a rational policy has produced a lurch from one policy to another. One day they support regional assemblies everywhere.

    Another day they want regional assemblies to be phased in, in some places.

    Because on yet another day they say regional assemblies would never appear in regions where they were not wanted.

    In Scotland, there is no answer to the big questions.

    Why should Scottish MPs be allowed to vote at Westminster on matters affecting England and Wales, when English and Welsh MPs would not be allowed to vote the same matters affecting Scotland?

    How can that be defended? No answer.

    What is the justification for the Tartan tax – forcing Scottish people to pay more tax than the English and Welsh just because they live North of the border?

    No answer.

    And what happens when a Scottish Prime Minister answerable to a Scottish Parliament finds himself in conflict with a United Kingdom Prime Minister answerable to a United Kingdom Parliament?

    You’ve guessed it – no answer.

    In Wales, as Neil Kinnock said, “Rightly or wrongly, the people will see the Assembly as a body which, in order to justify its forlorn existence, will have to take power from whatever tier of government it can get it’

    So the assembly would try to grab the powers of Welsh councils.

    That’s Labour’s new meaning of devolution.

    Not devolution down to the people, but p to the bureaucrats.

    Labour say their Welsh assembly wouldn’t be allowed to raise taxes.

    But have any of us ever met a socialist elected at any level who doesn’t want to spend more of the public’s money?

    So how long would it be before this Assembly started to demand the power to do so?

    These ideas would produce a decade of constitutional upheaval and muddle.

    But the damage would not stop there.

    The Assembly would become the focus of resentment against Westminster and a recipe for conflict with the rest of the United Kingdom.

    The Nationalists at least have logic on their side.

    They are profoundly wrong, but at least their arguments are logical.

    As for Labour, they have abandoned even the pretence of rationality in their schemes.

    The Mad Hatter could have dreamed them up.

    In their eagerness to tamper with the historical constitution of our Houses of Parliament, to divide up the United Kingdom internally, and to cast aside many of the veto powers protecting our sovereignty in Europe, Labour would inflict great damage on this nation.

    Mr Chairman, we must fight with all our strengths to stop the nation sleepwalking to such a disaster.

    That is our historic task.

    And you have my pledge to put the maintenance of our United Kingdom – and of the place of Wales within it – at the very centre of our campaign for the next Election.

    The Liberals

    Mr Chairman, a few days ago Mr Paddy Ashdown announced that the Liberals were dropping the pretence of being neutral between the Conservative and Labour parties.

    He said that the Liberals would never do a deal with us. Mr Chairman, I have news for Mr Ashdown.

    We’ve always known that he would be happy to prop up a Labour government.

    That’s no surprise at all.

    Mr Ashdown would no doubt be happy to be Minister for Morris Dancing in a Blair Cabinet.

    In fact, I’m sure he’d do that very well.

    But the Leader of the Liberal Democrats announcing the death of Liberalism as an independent political force is of some significance.

    Liberalism has in the past been a powerful force in the history of Wales.

    Whatever our quarrels with the Liberals, we should acknowledge that in parts of Wales they have fought socialism as vigorously as us.

    So I suspect that there will be some Liberals who cannot stomach being a wholly owned subsidiary of the Labour Party.

    They now know from the lips of their own Leader that there is now only one political party in this country which is committed to fighting the divisive, illiberal force of socialism and state control.

    Us.

    So those Liberals who still support the ancient Liberal virtues of individual liberty, of limiting the state, and of ever wider opportunity are welcome to join us.

    For only the Conservative Party now stands for those values.

    And we are open to anyone who shares them.

    Peroration

    Mr Chairman, I’ve no time for fainthearts in this Party.

    At the next election we will defeat Labour and their fellow travellers just as decisively as we have at the last four.

    We will be able to point to clear evidence of rising prosperity, as our decisions bear fruit.

    We will have a detailed agenda of policies to shape a stronger Britain in the new millennium.

    And we will have the knowledge that we and we alone will defend our nation’s interests abroad and our national unity at home.

    That is a strong platform.

    It is the right platform.

    And it is a winning platform.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on Bosnia – 31 May 1995

    Below is Mr Major’s statement on the situation in Bosnia, made on 31st May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): In the three weeks since the House last debated Bosnia, the position has qualitatively changed. Conflict has grown. The shelling of Sarajevo has intensified. UN soldiers have been deliberately targeted and killed by both sides. UN personnel, including officers and men of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, have been taken captive by Bosnian Serbs.

    The Government have decided to reinforce our contingent in Bosnia, and the diplomatic pace has quickened. For all those reasons, I thought it right to seek the recall of Parliament to set out the Government’s response to this tense and dangerous situation. Let me recall for the House the evolution of this crisis. The dispute in Bosnia began to crystallise in the spring of 1992, when Bosnia declared its independence. War broke out, and the country split into three parts. I believe that it would have been wrong for us to stand and watch Bosnia burn, and we did not.

    In August 1992, I convened the London conference which brought the parties together in search of a political settlement. We set up the Sarajevo airlift, and we were instrumental in establishing the United Nations protection force’s Bosnia command. The first British troops arrived in Bosnia in November 1992. Let me remind the House why we sent them. First is the humanitarian case. I believe that we have a duty–a moral responsibility if one likes–to play our part in the relief of suffering. Soldiers were being killed, but we also saw civilian suffering in Bosnia on a massive scale. There was ethnic cleansing–cold-blooded and racial-based murders. There was widespread rape and brutality. As winter approached, there was the clear prospect of widespread starvation.

    There had been nothing like it in Europe since the second world war. The aid agencies were doing their best, but they needed protection if the convoys bearing food and medicines were to get through. So we decided to play our part in providing that protection.

    Bosnia is close to the borders of the European Union. Even so, precisely the same case for help was seen by countries as far away as Canada, Malaysia and New Zealand, all of which have joined us in the task. Service men and women of 19 nations have stood with our relief agencies and our troops to help alleviate suffering. Many who would have died are alive today because of that effort. We should understand that many alive today would die if that effort were to end.

    Secondly, we sent our soldiers there for strategic reasons. The Balkans have often enough been a tinderbox in history, and war memorials throughout the United Kingdom testify to the price paid in British blood for past Balkan turbulence. The Bosnian war by itself might not directly affect our interests, but a wider conflagration across the Balkans–leading to a wider Balkan war–most certainly would affect our strategic interests.

    If unchecked, the fighting in Bosnia could have ignited not only a Serb- Croat war in Croatia, but unrest in Kosovo and Macedonia. That could easily have dragged Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey into confrontation with one another. The Bosnian dispute has always contained within it the seeds of the nightmare of a wider Balkan war.

    The consequences of a wider Balkan conflict would be disastrous for Europe as a whole. In my judgment, it is unquestionably in our national interest to prevent that if we are able to do so. The United Nations protection force and British forces may not have extinguished the fighting in Bosnia, but they have contained it and they have prevented it from spreading. That is a remarkable tribute to their efforts. Had they not been there, the circumstances we face today might have been incomparably more serious than those that we are debating this afternoon.

    If it is in our national interest to avert a greater calamity in Bosnia and the Balkans, so it is for other members of NATO and the European Union. The strategic case and the humanitarian case were the twin reasons why I thought it right to commit British troops in 1992. Both those cases apply in equal measure today–which is why I expressly do not wish to see the United Nations protection force withdraw until or unless the risks become wholly unacceptable. I will describe in more detail the developments of the last three weeks. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary warned the House on 9 May that there was a real risk of a relapse into substantial war, in place of the ragged and uncertain peace of previous months. Since then, my right hon. Friend’s words, sadly, have been borne out. There has been a chain reaction of attack and counter-attack by Bosnian Government and Bosnian Serb forces. Both parties have violated the Sarajevo exclusion zone by firing heavy weapons on to the confrontation lines and into the city itself.

    On 24 May, the UN Secretary-General’s special representative and the protection force commander made a further attempt to stop the escalating bombardment. They issued an ultimatum that certain heavy weapons should be returned to the collection points and other heavy weapons be removed from the exclusion zone. When the Bosnian Serb army ignored that ultimatum, NATO carried out a successful air strike against an ammunition store near Pale. It did so at the United Nations’ request.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Were the Russians consulted about the ultimatum? Were they consulted about the strike against the ammunition dumps? If not, would it not have been wise to do so?

    The Prime Minister: That was, as it was intended to be, a decision on the ground. No individual national Government were directly consulted. There is a proper procedure for determining how such strikes are approved, and that procedure was followed. The troops are there as United Nations troops, with a United Nations commander who happens to be a British general, and they proceeded at the request of the United Nations. I believe that they proceeded correctly.

    Shortly afterwards–in deliberate escalation–the Bosnian Serbs launched artillery attacks against the populations of Srebrenica, Gorazde and Tuzla. In the bombardment of Tuzla, 70 people were killed and 130 were injured. They were, I understand, for the most part innocent civilians in a marketplace–men, women and children going about their daily business. They were not armed combatants in the conflict.

    Following a second NATO air strike against the ammunition storage complex on 26 May, the Bosnian Serb army began to take United Nations military observers and members of the protection force as hostages. Hon. Members will have seen, in the press and on television, that some of these hostages, in an outrageous breach of international law and of their status as United Nations peacekeepers, were chained to potential targets as so- called “human shields”.

    On 27 May, the Bosnian Serb army attacked and captured a French observation post at Sarajevo. The post was subsequently retaken, but one French soldier was killed, 11 were wounded and 10 were taken captive. On Sunday 28 May, United Kingdom and Ukrainian soldiers were taken captive at Gorazde. Some of the Ukrainians were taken by Bosnian Government forces.

    I have set out in this brief summary only the bare facts of the situation confronting the United Nations and NATO commanders on the ground, but there is no doubt in my mind that these events mark a qualitative change in the conflict, and one to which we and our partners have no choice but to respond very firmly.

    Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): The House is listening intently, obviously, because of the British soldiers who are being held, but can the Prime Minister tell the House how he reconciles humanitarian aid given by British solders in blue berets with bombing attacks by American pilots in blue berets? Is it possible to combine humanitarian aid with a combative role? Is that not the question to which he should address himself?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows precisely what has happened when the NATO attacks–not necessarily American: they are NATO planes–in these circumstances have been used, and they have been used as a deterrent to persuade the Bosnians that that sort of activity is not acceptable to the international community in any way whatever.

    It is not very long ago–as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, for he will have hated this as much as anyone else did–that the nature of atrocities that we saw at the beginning of this war spread a darkening stain right the way across the conscience of the whole of Europe and the whole of the world as well. I believe, in these circumstances, that we have not only a right but an obligation to take the action that has been taken, to try to bring this conflict to an end and to end the suffering that so many people have faced in Bosnia.

    Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): Does the Prime Minister agree with the French Prime Minister that the preparation of those air strikes was not good, and that it led to putting the peacekeepers at risk in a thoughtless way?

    The Prime Minister: I said just a moment ago that I thought that it was right for the commanders on the ground to proceed as they did, and I have to say that I do not believe that I am prepared to second-guess the decisions of the commanders on the ground to whom those decisions were delegated, and I do not wish to do so. Let me now turn to the response that I believe we should make, and first to the matter that I believe is most upon the minds of the House this afternoon: the British and the other United Nations troops who have been taken captive and held hostage.

    The situation is that more than 350 United Nations personnel–who, I remind the House, have been serving in an impartial humanitarian and peacekeeping role in Bosnia–are now being illegally held by the Bosnian Serb army. Of these, one is a Royal Air Force officer serving as a United Nations military observer, and 33 are officers and men of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, who were taken captive last Sunday from observation points around the town of Gorazde, where 336 British solders are based.

    Six–not five as previously reported–of the soldiers have apparently been injured in a road accident and are in hospital, although none of them, we believe, is in a serious condition. The fusiliers are thought to be in Visegrad and in both good heart and good health. The taking of United Nations peacekeepers as hostages is a despicable act, which has rightly been condemned around the world. It is without a shred of justification. It will win the Bosnian Serbs no favours and gain them no friends. It will guarantee unremitting hostility to them, and the certainty of pariah status and international isolation.

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mon): The Prime Minister will be aware that the whole House and those outside it–particularly in Wales–will be very concerned about the safety and welfare of the 33 young soldiers who have been taken hostage by the Serb aggressors. Will he tell the House today that whatever action he proposes to take will in no way endanger the safety of those young men, and that he will ensure that that action will be taken to secure their early release?

    The Prime Minister: I will have something to say in a few moments about what we propose to do. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand why it would be neither wise nor prudent for me to say too much about the matter at this time.

    Within hours of the capture of the British troops, we took steps to make it clear, directly and unequivocally, to the Bosnian Serb leadership that the safety of our troops in Bosnia is of vital British interest. We have told Mr. Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader, that we shall hold him and General Mladic personally responsible for the well-being and the safe return of our troops. These words are not lightly spoken, and, as I shall explain, we are reinforcing our protection force contingent.

    No one should doubt our resolve to secure the safe return of our soldiers. Yet, as we embark on the moves towards such a result, I hope that the House will understand if I do not go into detail about the courses that may be available to us.

    Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East): Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister: In a moment. With the lives of British soldiers at stake, there will be a need for patience, a time for restraint, perhaps at times a need for silence. But if the silences are long, and if the requirement for restraint and patience becomes frustrating, no one in the House should imagine that those soldiers will be forgotten. The work to secure their release will be unremitting.

    Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that eight members of the Royal Welch Fusiliers are at present unaccounted for? Does he appreciate that there is considerable concern among their relatives back home about their safety?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the observation post near Gorazde. I understand entirely the points that he has to make. Let me turn to the reason why our forces are in Bosnia–and to what they are not there to do. Our troops have not gone to Bosnia to wage war, but even on humanitarian duties we have seen that they need protection. If they are attacked, they must be able to defend themselves robustly.

    The protection force commander in Bosnia, General Smith, knows that he has our complete support. The protection force must be able to take whatever action is necessary in justifiable self-defence. When it does so, it will have the unqualified backing of the British Government–and, I believe, of the British nation. To improve the protection force’s capacity to defend itself, the Government on Sunday night decided to enhance the equipment and manpower available to the force.

    At present, we have some 3,400 troops in Bosnia, protecting convoys and monitoring local ceasefires. A further 3,000 men and women from the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy are engaged in the airlift from Italy to Sarajevo; in NATO operations to police the air exclusion zone; in the joint enforcement by NATO and the Western European Union of the arms embargo and trade sanctions; and as contingency reinforcements on a carrier task group.

    Anyone who has had the privilege of visiting any of those units, as I have, knows that they have carried out their peacekeeping tasks with scrupulous fairness and with a cool resolve–often in the face of provocation. I believe that we can be truly proud of them. But despite their military professionalism, the troops on the ground in Bosnia now need more protection, and the safety of those troops is, as I said, of vital national interest.

    So we have decided to dispatch two artillery batteries and an armoured engineer squadron to Bosnia, totalling around 1,000 personnel. The first detachment, from 19 Field Regiment, left for Bosnia yesterday. Those units will increase our contingent’s armoured capability. Crucially, they will provide artillery. They will be equipped with 12 105 mm light guns. That will provide the protection forces, for the first time, with the artillery that is now necessary as a deterrent and response to bombardment.

    That does not mean that we are taking sides in the conflict. The protection force remains neutral, and it remains impartial. But, to defend itself, it now needs a capability to fill the gap between machine guns and air strikes.

    The Government have also announced that 24 Air Mobile Brigade has been placed under orders to prepare to deploy to Bosnia. The order to move will be given unless there is a clear and rapid improvement in the situation. We have proposed to the United Nations that the brigade, as United Nations troops, should come under the command of General Rupert Smith in Sarajevo. We are now discussing the details of the deployment with the United Nations.

    Let me say a little more about 24 Air Mobile Brigade. It is a flexible, self-contained force of over 5,000 personnel. It is, as its title suggests, able to deploy very rapidly within theatre. Its equipment includes Army and Royal Air Force helicopters, Milan anti-tank weapons, artillery batteries, an air defence battery and engineer and medical support. We have constantly said that the safety of British troops is crucial; our readiness to deploy the Air Mobile Brigade is ample testimony to that.

    Let me emphasise one point that I know is of concern to the House, which should not be misunderstood in the House or beyond it. The protection force is in Bosnia as an humanitarian and peacekeeping force. It is not there to impose peace, and it is not equipped or configured to fight a war. Those points are fundamental, and we do not intend that they should be changed.

    Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey): Does the Prime Minister accept that there will be widespread support, both in the House and outside, for the concept that not just serving the British flag but serving the United Nations is among the most honourable of tasks for our armed forces?

    Although some may react by saying that, as soon as there is particular danger, the troops should be withdrawn, it is also true–given that these are among the best armed forces in the world, equipped to deal with particular danger–that many in those forces will regard the job they have started as a job that they would rather continue, if that is possible. Not necessarily success, but the attempt to bring about peace on behalf of the international community, is the reason why the forces are there, and the reason why the Government are right to support them in the way that the Prime Minister has announced.

    The Prime Minister: I have indicated that I wish our forces to stay there, and I wish the United Nations protection force as a whole to stay there to carry out the job for which it was sent. That job is not yet concluded; I hope that it will be possible for it to remain. We see a strong case for reducing the vulnerability of United Nations personnel– particularly the United Nations military observers, who have been in the most exposed positions. Some may need to be withdrawn, others concentrated and others given stronger protection. The commanders on the ground are best placed to determine precisely how that should be done, in consultation with the Secretary-General and, through him, with the Security Council. I understand that the Secretary-General will shortly be making his recommendations to the Security Council on the future role of the protection forces.

    Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West): Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister: May I make a little progress? Our decisions have been warmly welcomed by the protection force and by other Governments. The contact group agreed on Monday that the protection force should have a rapid reaction capability. France, which at present has the largest contingent in Bosnia, has sent reinforcements to the Adriatic. Some other troop contributors are also thinking of strengthening their contingents.

    Madam Speaker, those decisions are intended to help carry UNPROFOR through a dangerous phase. We hope that they will make it more secure, will help it to fulfil its tasks, and will deter further escalation. If we can damp down the level of violence and make progress towards a lasting cessation, at that point the protection force would no longer need the enhanced protection.

    However, success for the protection force rests ultimately with the warring parties. I believe that, at this moment, Bosnia is at a turning point. It must be made clear to the parties that, if they turned to all-out war, the protection force would not be equipped to remain. It would be unable to carry out its tasks, and the risks to the troops of all nationalities would be unacceptable.

    Withdrawal is not our objective; but our ability to handle withdrawal, if it is forced upon us, would undoubtedly be helped by the further deployment that I have announced to the House today.

    Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay): Before we commit more troops to that theatre who may suffer the same fate as the troops who are already there, will my right hon. Friend comment on the report that the Serbs have said that, if we agree to cease bombing, they will release the hostages? Is that report accurate? If it is, what are we doing to make NATO give us that assurance?

    The Prime Minister: I yield to no one in my wish to have those troops returned safely to their units, but I am not entering into that sort of blackmailing deal.

    Madam Speaker, in taking those decisions, we have unequivocally signalled our serious intent. We wish to see the protection force remain in Bosnia and continue its work. We wish to restore equilibrium to a situation that has become dangerously unstable. We continue to believe that only a political settlement will end the conflict. There can be no satisfactory and lasting military solution.

    The way ahead may yet be rocky and painful. I know that many people, for good and understandable reasons, may advocate withdrawing the forces and, as I have said to the House, circumstances could arise in which that would become inevitable. But withdrawal is not a policy. No one should believe that leaving Bosnia would end the United Kingdom’s interest in the conflict.

    Mr. Morgan: I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister on behalf of the families of the 30 Welsh soldiers who are being held in Bosnia. Was it primarily the responsibility of the British Government or of the United Nations to have secured in advance some means of escape for those soldiers who were being held in the very difficult pockets of the further extensions of Bosnia in case things got extremely difficult–as they have done–and there was hostage taking? Whose responsibility was that?

    The Prime Minister: I think that we have a joint interest in securing their release. Of course, their deployment is a matter that must be determined on the ground, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and the soldiers themselves would well know. Let me turn to the possible consequences of withdrawing the protection force. If the United Nations left, what would be the likely outcome?

    The first likely outcome is that the Muslim areas, including the eastern enclaves, would be likely to come under immediate threat. The bloodshed and loss of life could be massive. Before we sent troops three years ago, Bosnia was on the brink of genocide–of atrocities far worse than we have yet seen. If we depart, I remind the House that those dangers return. Could the west stand idly by and let such actions take place in south-eastern Europe? I doubt it; I truly doubt it. Would we ignore the threat of an all- out Balkan war? Again, I do not believe that we would or should ignore such a threat. Leaving Bosnia–if the protection force is forced to do so–is neither an easy nor a pain-free option. The threats would return if the United Nations protection force withdrew, and we and our allies would have to find other ways of responding to them–ways which could conceivably impose a greater financial and military burden on us than we are now carrying. Those who contemplate withdrawal must think very carefully about the humanitarian consequences and the strategic implications for European security.

    At present, UNPROFOR is holding the ring. It must try to continue to do so, while we seek a political solution. Despite every effort by Governments and individuals–notably Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg–the search for a negotiated settlement has been extremely frustrating. For months, progress has been blocked by the intransigence of the Bosnian Serbs.

    Over the past week, we have been in close touch with our partners to reinvigorate diplomatic efforts and maximise the pressure on Pale. I have spoken to the Presidents of Russia, the United States and France, the German Chancellor and the Canadian Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has attended meetings of the contact group, NATO and the European Union, and this morning had further discussions with the Russian Foreign Minister.

    As a result of those meetings, there is a renewed unity of purpose among contact group Governments. The Russian Government condemned the behaviour of the Bosnian Serbs in the strongest possible language. We wish to see an equally clear stance from President Milosevic. The contact group’s emissary is in Belgrade today. If the contact group can secure the recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina by the former republic of Yugoslavia, fears or ambitions of a greater Serbia should be laid to rest, and the message to the Bosnian Serbs would be absolutely unmistakable.

    I have tried to set out the situation as I see it. It is stark and it is serious, but we cannot avoid it. So I hope the word will go out this afternoon from all parts of the House that British peacekeepers, United Nations peacekeepers, must be released unharmed and unconditionally.

    Let us show our forces, whether they are on land, at sea or in the air in the former Yugoslavia and the Adriatic, that they have the total support of the House. They have saved many lives. They have brought peace and hope and a semblance of normality to central Bosnia. They have prevented the spread of war. They are defending British interests and international security. Their courage and professionalism have earned the widest admiration. They deserve our wholehearted backing, and I commend it to the House.