The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1991

  • Mr Major’s Address to the Divisional Artillery in Kuwait – 6 March 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s address to the Divisional Artillery in Kuwait on Wednesday 6th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wanted to come out here today, having seen what things were like at the beginning of January, to say just two or three things to you. Firstly, it was a fabulous job, I do not believe it could have been done better and the general view at home is that this was a copy book war from start to finish, the planning, the logistics, the execution of it, all of it went as well as we could possibly have hoped and there are 50 odd million people at home who have been watching every tiny movement in this over the last few months, there are more experts on the Gulf out there back home than there are out here. You may be surprised to know that but I can promise you it is the case, it has been almost the sole topic of conversation for weeks past, what is happening, what is going to happen, how are the boys doing, when are they going to come home? Those are the questions, of course some of those of no interest whatsoever to you, that have dominated conversation back home.

    But would like to say to you that the support back home for what you have been doing has been absolutely unbelievable and when you get home you will feel that and you will know it without a shadow of doubt because people are pretty proud of what you did over here and I do not just mean the British, if you go to the United States at the moment as well you will find they are pretty proud of what you have done as well. So I am delighted to be here in order to say thank you to you all.

    You may be interested to know about going home and one or two miscellaneous matters like that. I cannot give you an exact date for that, I can give you a promise that we will not keep you out here a day longer than is necessary and we are actually working now on the logistics of when differing people can go home. There is a certain amount to be done but as soon as we can send you home we will and as soon as you get home there will be some leave which I daresay you will find something to do with, I am sure that will be the case.

    One other point you may be interest in, though it is not for public consumption yet and I know the press will honour that for the time being, a number of our prisoners of war are released today, quite a few, there is some rather good news there, perhaps more than we imagined were alive and we should have them back in our hands with a bit of luck later on today, so that is extremely good news.

    I see looking round that you are souvenir hunters, I do not know quite what you are going to do with them all but I think one or two of those tanks will be of some use when we get them back home, we can either strip them down and see what they look like or perhaps they will make good target practice, whatever. But well done on the souvenirs, well done on the battle.

    I guess many of you may wonder what it was all about, why were you here, was it necessary? I just want to say to you that it was necessary and you were here not just because of the invasion of Kuwait, important though that was, but if you had not been here with your allies, if this problem of Kuwait had not been sorted out now, then it might have been a much bigger and much more dangerous problem not very many years away. That would have been perhaps a much more difficult problem to deal with, it was necessary to deal with it now and I do not think it could have been better dealt with than the way you have done it. So thank you very much indeed.

    There is no more to say except that a thank you from me is not just from me, it is from everybody back home who would be delighted to come here and say it themselves. Many thanks indeed, you did magnificently, thank you.

  • Mr Major’s Address to the 7th Armoured Division in Kuwait – 6 March 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s address to the 7th Armoured Division in Kuwait on Wednesday 6th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I must say it is jolly nice to be back and thank you very much for what you have done over the last few months, it has been an absolutely fabulous job. I do not think it could have been better done and the general impression back home, and I think it is the right impression, is that this has been one of the most remarkable military episodes ever, it has been a copy book exercise, it was brilliantly planned, it was brilliantly done and I would just like you to know how very proud at home everyone is of the way that you performed and the way you operated over the period of the last few months. Everything else for months has been pretty much wiped off the media and wiped off the press. There are 56 million people back home, all of whom are thorough experts in the Gulf war, all of whom know intimately what you have been doing and I can promise you every single one of them is very proud of what you have done and I am very grateful to you for doing it.

    Let me just pass on two or three bits of information you just may vaguely be interested in. The first is we will not keep you out here a day longer than we have to, the sooner we can get you back home we will do so, I cannot tell you precisely when that will be, but I do give you my word there will be no undue delay about it. The second thing which will be of no interest to you whatsoever I know is there will be some leave when you get back home, though what you will do after you have had so long in the sun out here I cannot myself immediately imagine. The other piece of news I think you may be interested in, though from the media’s point of view it is not to be reported just yet and I hope they will respect that, is that we will get a number of our prisoners of war back sometime later on today and that is all going extremely well.

    So I just really want to say in conclusion, for I would like to stop and have a chat rather than make speeches at you, that it has been a most remarkable exercise, everybody is thrilled with it, I am delighted to be here and saying that to you and I hope when we get home I will have another chance to see you all there.

    Thank you all very much indeed.

  • Mr Major’s Address to RAF troops at Dhahran – 6 March 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s address to the RAF troops at Dhahran, given on 6th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    [some sections inaudible and marked by …]

    Well as I say, you have had a busy time since last I was here and quite a successful one and I see that you have not lost the gift of producing … well you can all go home soon except those lads, they can go home last.

    Can I just say thanks for what you have done over the last few weeks, it has been a tremendous operation. At home everybody has watched, listened, read the newspapers day after day to see precisely what you are doing and how things are getting on and there has been a tremendous amount of pride in the success that you have had and that is true all the way across the United Kingdom and I can tell you it is right across America as well.

    So thank you all for all you have done. I am quite serious about the fact that you will be going home soon. I do not intend to keep you here one day longer than is necessary and when you do go home there will be a bit of leave and I daresay that you will be able to put it to good use. But what will you do with it?

    I was as pleased as all you were when we heard just a few hours ago that … and … were safe. I remember meeting them … their Tornado last time I was here. I am sorry they are not here today, I am glad they are elsewhere and safe and I look forward to meeting them all again soon. So really I have got no more to say except just this: it was a remarkable military operation, one of the best there has ever been and it was executed as well as it could have been and you certainly a front line part in it.

    Absolutely fabulous, well done, thank you very much indeed.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on his Kuwait Visit – 5 March 1991

    The text of Mr Major’s comments made regarding his visit to Kuwait on Tuesday 5th March 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why he was in Kuwait].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I want to see Kuwait, I want to see the city, I want to talk to the Ambassador, I want to see what damage has been done and what needs to be done to repair it. A war has just been fought over the freedom and liberation of Kuwait; it is now liberated; I think it is perfectly reasonable to wish to see what has been done.

    But I suppose even more important than that is the opportunity to go and see the troops who played such a key part in the liberation and thank them for what they did, that I certainly want to do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he knew when British troops would be able to come home].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t be absolutely precise when they will be able to leave. They have to return all their equipment to a suitable depot, it is spread out over a very large area. There is a huge amount still to be done, but I would very much hope that we could begin moving the first of the troops home within about three weeks and insofar as it is possible – and that will have to be a decision made by the commanders in the field, not one I can make in London – I would like the troops who were in the front line to come home first.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on President Gorbachev – 5 March 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments made regarding President Gorbachev on Tuesday 5th March 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he felt reforms would continue under President Gorbachev].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He clearly faces very great difficulties in carrying them forward but I was left in no doubt that he thinks they are desirable, that he wishes to carry them forward and that it is his intention to carry them forward. What I don’t know, of course, is how successful he will be in doing that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he could support both President Gorbachev and independence for the Baltic states].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have supported the reforms in the Soviet Union which have been carried out under Mr Gorbachev’s leadership very strongly over the period of the last few years. Mr Gorbachev the reformer, we have supported, and Mr Gorbachev the reformer we will continue to support.

    I made our disapproval of what happened in the Baltic States very clear indeed.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was concerned about the Soviet’s economic policies].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not so much the policies in force that we are concerned about; it is the policies that we wish to see put in force that are not yet off the ground. It is all very well setting our your aspiration for a market-based society but you actually need practical action to bring it about and that that is what we wish to see.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Moscow – 5 March 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s press conference held in Moscow on Tuesday 5th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Perhaps I might firstly apologise to you for the fact that we have kept you waiting a few moments. I am afraid the day rather overran in one or two meetings but I hope it has not caused you too much inconvenience.

    I have had a very full day here today and I think a very worthwhile one. I began with a meeting over breakfast with representatives of the Baltic States; later on I had a meeting with some prominent liberals and radicals; beyond that I had a meeting with President Gorbachev and thereafter lunch with President Gorbachev and a number of his colleagues. This afternoon I had meetings with Mr Pavlov and then with Marshal Yazov. Later on this evening I have a meeting with Mr Shevardnadze.

    The centrepiece of the day was a lengthy meeting and lunch with President Gorbachev. We had an excellent talk, a long talk around four hours in total, including the discussion over luncheon. It was I think a very thorough discussion, at times an intense one, but it was good humoured and I believe producing useful and worthwhile results.

    We gave priority in our discussions to the Middle East and in particular to the form of a post-war settlement in the Gulf. The most encouraging point was the willingness of the Soviet Union to go on working with the other Permanent Members of the UN Security Council in the next phase of the peace. I think that is very welcome indeed and I know will be very welcome in the West. We agreed that it was basically for the countries of the region themselves to decide what form security arrangements should take. I explained to President Gorbachev that we did not plan to station ground forces permanently in the area. I also asked for Mr Gorbachev’s help over securing the release of all British citizens held in Iraq and he kindly undertook to give me that help. We agreed on the desirability of restraint on exports to the area of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and also on caution of the export of conventional arms. And finally we agreed that Foreign Ministers should meet soon to discuss these matters.

    On more general arms control issues we discussed problems on the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and I explained to President Gorbachev and later to Marshal Yazov where we saw problems with that. Mr Gorbachev agreed we must find solutions jointly or, as he put it, there is no alternative.

    We discussed of course the situation in the Baltic Republics. I explained to President Gorbachev the dismay that I felt and that the West generally had felt about the events in January of this year and I expressed also our hope that the way forward would be through negotiations. Mr Gorbachev contested some of the statements and decisions and comments that had been made in the West and emphasised the difficulties that he faced. He also emphasised in our discussion that he believed in a constitutional process to solve the problem of the Baltics. He emphasised also that if the Baltics followed that process then independence was a possible outcome.

    In addition we discussed a number of bilateral issues and over lunch President Gorbachev gave me a very full and very interesting account of political and economic reform in the Soviet Union. He emphasised very strongly indeed that he was personally committed to continue with that reform despite the difficulties and setbacks that inevitably there have been and will be.

    During our discussions I invited Mr Gorbachev to visit the United Kingdom and I hope he will be able to do so soon, he was happy to accept the invitation. He also returned the invitation by inviting me to return on an official visit to the Soviet Union so I think there will be plenty of opportunities in the future for more bilateral contacts and I welcome that without reservation.

    To sum up therefore I think we have had a very worthwhile day and some very good discussions which opened the way for us to work together on a future political settlement in the Middle East and also to resolve the remaining difficulties over the Conventional Forces Agreement. I believe on the back of that, and I hope this belief is reciprocated, that it has been a worthwhile day. Our personal relations were easy, I found it both an enjoyable as well as an interesting day and in short I believe we can say that the united Kingdom can continue to do business with Mr Gorbachev in a very satisfactory manner and I hope our future contacts will remain as cordial as they were today and that they will come about frequently.

    That I think summarises what we have been talking about today but I will endeavour to answer any questions you may have for a few moments.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr Prime Minister, what was the conclusion as to the situation in the Middle East and what is your vision of the mechanism to solve this problem? And what is your view concerning the security situation in that region and will there be a need for guarantees from great powers?

    PRIME MINISTER:
    I think in terms of the Middle East our first agreed conclusion was that we had to take into account first and foremost the views of the states that actually existed in the region so that we could see in what way we might meet their own security concerns.

    It was in that context that I emphasised that I certainly did not see a standing British or indeed Western army in the region though it was entirely possible at the end of discussions that the Arab nations themselves might have their own standing army. But we did agree that that was something that could only be determined after there had been greater discussions with the Middle East countries and after we could take into account the wider interests of the region. So we cannot yet reach a final conclusion on that but I think we are agreed that all members of the Permanent Five must continue to work together to ensure that we do find a satisfactory conclusion. The mechanism for reaching an agreement remains open. Certainly there will be a good deal of bilateral contact, there will also be discussions of Foreign Ministers that will take place in the not too distant future and certainly at the conclusion of the conflict the Security Council no doubt will wish to express its own views. But the mechanism for reaching a settlement in the Middle East remains to be determined and cannot be determined until we know more about the individual views of member states in the area.

    QUESTION:

    What did you talk with Mr Yazov about conventional arms in Europe, what explanations did he give about this subject and did you talk with Mr Pavlov about his accusations to the Western banks and did you discuss the Palestinian issue with Mr Gorbachev?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the third point first, the question of a Palestinian settlement, we did discuss that in our talks this morning as part of our general discussion on the Middle East and we agreed that now the Gulf conflict had ceased it was a priority in that area to try and find a settlement to the Palestinian problem and one that all countries would wish to pursue. There are a variety of ways in which it can be pursued, none of those are yet entirely clear as to which may turn out to be the best. But that it is a priority and that the prospects for a settlement are brighter today than they have been for some time was something we were able to agree about this morning.

    The discussions I had with Marshal Yazov about the CFE Agreement largely related to the problems we have seen about resubordination. We discussed that at some length, I expressed my concerns, the Defence Minister set out his response to that and I think it was a most useful and worthwhile exchange.

    I spent most of my time with the Prime Minister, Mr Pavlov, in discussing the economy rather than the individual comment that he made some time ago which I think has not been repeated. And so I felt it more prudent to discuss the wider issue of how the economy is being run, what needs to be done to carry reform forward, and I found that a most worthwhile exercise.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, could you say which parts of your talks were most intense and why?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were several parts of my talks with President Gorbachev that were intense. There were intense discussions over the Baltic States, a matter of very considerable importance; there were intense discussions over a number of other matters – I don’t think I want to elaborate all of them.

    When I say “intense”, I do not mean ill-humoured; I mean there were some frank and free exchanges; it was a candid but good-natured discussion.

    QUESTION (NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE):

    On the question of the Baltics, did Mr. Gorbachev have any reaction to the referendum that was carried on there over the weekend and when you say that he seemed committed to the constitutional path in allowing the Baltics to leave in a constitutional manner, did he say what he means by that? Did he mean the law that takes several years and several votes by several different parliaments to get out of the Soviet Union or did he seem to see a more flexible way?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think Mr. Gorbachev saw that as an immediate outcome. He pointed out that a constitutional path could lead to independence for the Baltic States and we discussed that at some lengths.

    QUESTION:

    And the referendum?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We touched upon that; it is a matter of fact that the referendum has taken place and the outcome of the referendum is known; there was not a great deal more that could be said other than to acknowledge that fact.

    QUESTION (IN RUSSIAN):

    For how long do you plan to continue your occupation of the Iraqi territory and how does it correspond to the European civilisation? That is my first question.

    Second, will the Security Council take a decision to use force against Israel in order to liberate the Syrian and Lebanese territory?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t regard us as occupying the Iraqi territory – it was the Iraqis who occupied the Kuwaiti territory; they declined to leave the Kuwaiti territory despite the Security Council Resolutions, despite having innumerable opportunities of doing so between August and January 15 and despite having opportunities to do so after January 15.

    The British forces will leave Iraq very speedily. As I indicated a few moments ago in my Statement, we have no intention of occupying Iraq, no intention of doing that whatsoever. There will be no standing army and the British forces and other Allied forces will leave. Neither is there any suggestion of changing the boundaries of Iraq – they are sacrosanct and they will remain so.

    So I do not agree with the way in which you put your question but the answer to it is that Western forces will not be there for a very great deal of time. There is an immense amount of clearing up and preparation to be done but they are not going to remain there as an occupying force. The parallel. I think you draw is not one that I would accept.

    QUESTION:

    My second question is is there any possibility of the Security Council calling for the use of force against Israel so that it liberates and withdraws from all Arab territories?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The question of the Palestinian problem in the wider sense is one of the matters that hope to be dealt with during the discussions on the Middle East and the position is that it will be discussed and dealt with in terms of Resolution 242 on the basis of peace for land. That was and is the situation.

    MR. WHITE (GUARDIAN):

    Prime Minister, you seem to be encouraged by what you have learned from the Soviet Prime Minister in your talks [indistinct] Soviet Union continued to play a constructive part. I wonder, on balance, on one or two of the main areas of discussion – the Baltics and economic political reform in the Soviet Union – have you come away more encouraged or less encouraged? You seemed to be suggesting there is quite a gap between what the Baltic States themselves want in terms of the negotiations and what Mr. Gorbachev has said that he was willing to [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is still a gap, of course there is still a gap but I think there is agreement as to how that gap should be bridged. It has to be bridged through negotiations and Mr. Gorbachev did indicate today that at the end of the negotiations through a constitutional process the prospect of independence was there. That, I think, is a worthwhile and welcome reassurance – I hope the Baltic States will accept it as such. I think to that extent I do find myself encouraged about it.

    On the question of the economic problems and perestroika in the widest aspects, there is absolutely no doubt in what Mr. Gorbachev said today that he is committed to the continuation of the economic reforms. Clearly, they are going to be lengthy and they are going to be difficult and I have no doubt there will be setbacks but I must say he was compelling in his assertion that he was determined to press on with those reforms. That certainly is encouraging though I don’t think anybody would have any doubt at all about the difficulties that lie ahead in doing so.

    QUESTION (CANADIAN BROADCASTING):

    Did you get any guarantees from President Gorbachev that the Soviet Union will not resume arms shipments to Iraq? Also, the Soviet peace initiative was met by criticism in some quarters in the West; has it raised questions in your mind as to Moscow’s motives and has it damaged Moscow’s relationship in any way with your country or with the West or with other members of the coalition?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The straightforward answer to the first question is “No!”. The answer to the second question is: No, it has not damaged the relationship with the West. Whenever the Soviet Union went back to the Security Council, it supported the Security Council Resolutions right up to and including the last few days and that was very welcome and I think the nature of discussions we have had today, the fact that I have invited Mr. Gorbachev back to the United Kingdom and he has invited me to come back to the Soviet Union again, illustrates that our relationship remains good.

    ROBIN OAKLEY (THE TIMES):

    Prime Minister, did Mr. Gorbachev agree with your frequently-expressed opinion that Saddam Hussein’s continuation in power would gravely hamper efforts to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East?

    Secondly, will you be making any attempt to restrain both Saudis and Kuwaitis now in their treatment of Palestinians in the interests of a wider settlement in the Middle East?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    President Gorbachev did not express a view in the terms you put it to me about Saddam Hussein but I think there is no doubt that he recognises where the majority blame – the complete blame in fact – for the conflict in the Middle East has itself arisen over the period of the last few months.

    Of course, there is a necessity for everyone to make sure that there is no ill treatment of Palestinians at the conclusion of the conflict. That is a point that we have already made to everybody in the region and we will continue to make it.

    ALISTAIR CAMPBELL:

    Prime Minister [indistinct] chances of Mr. Gorbachev’s political survival?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He is a very formidable man, Mr. Gorbachev, no question about that; a formidable politician with a huge range of achievements behind him. I knew that before I came, I know it now. I think he is no less formidable having talked to him for four hours than I did before I came.

    THE IRISH TIMES:

    I notice you said that you met some radical leaders this morning but clearly Mr. Yeltsin was not among them. Would you care to say how you see Mr. Yeltsin’s role in the political evolution here in the Soviet Union and did you consider it impolitic to meet him today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I did not consider it impolitic to meet him and I hope at some stage in the not too distant future that I will have the opportunity of meeting him. As you saw from the programme I set out this morning, it was fairly crowded and because of other events I am only able on this occasion to stay here for one day and must be on a plane very shortly. That is the reason I did not meet Mr. Yeltsin. I think I had better express views about Mr. Yeltsin after I have met him rather than before.

    QUESTION (JERUSALEM NEWSPAPER):

    Are you going to support a Palestinian state after the Gulf war?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are certainly keen to see that there is a settlement of the Palestinian problem and as I said a few moments ago, that will be on the basis of Resolution 242. I hope that will be something that will enable all the appropriate parties in the Middle East to negotiate satisfactorily and reach a conclusion. I do not presuppose that that will either be easy or necessarily speedy but I do repeat what I said a few moments ago: I think the prospect of getting a settlement now is better than it has been before and we must pursue it vigorously – that is certainly what we intend to do.

  • PMQT – 5 March 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday, 5 March.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Moscow having bilateral discussions with President Gorbachev.

    Mr. Michie : Will the Lord President admit that, if the Ribble Valley borough council had been given the £1,192 per poll tax payer that was received in Wandsworth–[ Hon. Members :– “What about Lambeth? Start again.”] I shall start again. Will the Lord President admit that, if Ribble Valley borough council had been given the same £1,192 per poll tax payer, Ribble Valley constituents would have saved £225 per head?

    Mr. MacGregor : Ribble Valley is a district council so cannot be compared with the borough that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Ribble Valley received much less than the adjoining Preston borough council and its community charge is 70p per week compared with £1.40 in Preston. Moreover, Ribble Valley community charge payers will benefit in many other ways. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to compare Ribble Valley’s community charge with the minimum community charge in London, I must point out that the London borough of Wandsworth has an external support grant per adult of £1,192, compared with Lambeth’s £1,557. He will know that there is a phenomenal difference in the community charge between boroughs.

    Sir John Stokes : In view of the large and growing number of hoax bomb calls, does my right hon. Friend think that the present maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment is sufficient for such a serious and dangerous offence?

    Mr. MacGregor : I believe that the matter is being looked at not only by the Government but British Telecom. I agree about the importance of dealing with hoax phone calls.

    Mr. Hattersley : Did yesterday’s statement on the poll tax in Clitheroe by the Secretary of State for Health represent Government policy?

    Mr. MacGregor : The position on the community charge is clear. The right hon. Gentleman mentions Clitheroe and I think that I know what he has in mind. He will know that the community charge reduction scheme, which we introduced recently, will benefit eight out of 10 households in Ribble Valley next year and that, of those, the average reduction will be about £200. That is a clear position on the community charge, from which many people in Ribble Valley will benefit.

    Mr. Hattersley : I think that the Lord President has blocked his colleague’s statement from his mind. Let me remind him what the Secretary of State for Health said, succinctly and precisely, about the poll tax. He said that the Government’s policy was “No regrets, no apology.” Does the Lord President endorse that view?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not like my answer on the community charge reduction scheme, which will clearly benefit a great number of people in Ribble Valley. He will know that we are reviewing all aspects of the community charge scheme–that has been made clear many times.

    Mr. Hattersley : As the Lord President has twice singularly refused to answer my question about what his colleague said, may I suggest that what his colleague really meant was, “No apologies, no regrets about the poll tax and no idea what to do next”?

    Mr. MacGregor : Might I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should not pay so much attention to everything in the newspapers, because my right hon. Friend said no such thing.

    Mr. Favell : Now that it looks as though the community charge, in its present form, is going to go, will the Cabinet consider abolishing the right of town halls to raise money and give them 100 per cent., based on a formula of what they need to spend? That would save more than £1.5 billion in collection costs and do away with transitional relief and community charge relief.

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend has made his view known, and will know that the Cabinet is looking at all options in relation to the community charge review.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Fyfe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Fyfe : Does the right hon. Gentleman know that last year no fewer than 1,390 operations were cancelled in the Ribble Valley health authority district? Does he also know that, in Ayrshire senior medical staff were balloted twice about opting out of health board controls and voted overwhelmingly against doing so, but that that decision is still to be imposed on the people of that district? What way is that to run a health service?

    Mr. MacGregor : I do know that in Ribble Valley the number of in- patients treated has gone up by 36 per cent., the waiting lists have come down by 65 per cent. over 12 months and £36 million worth of capital has been invested since 1979. That is a clear sign of the priority given to health in that district.

    Mr. Squire : Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the consistent attempts of Conservative Wandsworth and Westminster to reduce their community charge to the lowest possible level were described as a “silly battle” by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)? Does my right hon. Friend agree that many thousands, if not millions, of people in this country would welcome other councils joining that battle? The real silly battle is between Labour Lambeth and Haringey to see who will have the highest charge.

    Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend. When I am in London I have to live in the London borough of Haringey and have watched its record of mismanagement over many years. It simply cannot be claimed that Haringey receives a small amount of external support in terms of pounds per adult– the amount is high. As Secretary of State for Education and Science, I watched as Haringey spent much more money on central administration for education than any other local education authority in the country. But it is still not able to give the accounts for its education spending later than 1986. Such mismanagement has produced the high community charge in Haringey, Lambeth and other boroughs.

     

    Q4. Mr. Trimble : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Trimble : I should like to refer the Leader of the House to the explosion that occurred this morning in the design engineering works of Shorts in Belfast. Does he agree that this was an attack upon jobs and fair employment? Will the Government support Shorts and other firms in efforts to screen out from lists of potential employees those who would actively assist terrorism in this way?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that the whole House deeply regrets the incidents in Northern Ireland in the last few days, and would want to extend sympathy to all those who have been affected. The Government’s stance on terrorism is well known. We are determined, as always, to use every effort to stamp it out.

    Mr. Adley : Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of the running of the final train on the Somerset and Dorset joint railway? After that event, in a fit of corporate vandalism, the track was rendered unusable. Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow I shall present for its First Reading the Railway Re-openings (Tribunal) Bill? The supporters of this Bill include Labour Front-Bench Members, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the leader of the Scottish National party, as well as many other Members in all parts of the House. Will my right hon. Friend please do his best to ensure that his Cabinet colleagues recognise that ripping up a temporarily redundant railway track is an unacceptable act of national vandalism?

    Mr. MacGregor : I was not aware of the anniversary to which my hon. Friend has referred, but, knowing his very great knowledge of these matters, I shall take his word for it. Until now, his Bill had not been drawn to my attention. I am grateful to him for letting me know about it, and I am certainly willing to look at it.

     

    Q5. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Skinner : Is the Leader of the House aware that the present squalid Tory Government, in their first 10 years of office, handed out £26.2 billion to the wealthiest 1 per cent. of taxpayers? Does he know that that kind of money would give a cold weather payment and a free television licence to every pensioner, slash the national health service waiting list, get rid of cardboard city and stop the education cuts? Why do not the Government, instead of rabbiting on about the classless society, practise what they preach? Why do not they stop redistributing wealth to the rich and give some to the poor and needy?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am also very well aware of the much more substantial reductions in income tax for the majority of households in this country. I am well aware, too, of the result of the pursuit of successful economic policies, including the 42 per cent. real-terms increase in expenditure on the health service and the big increases in expenditure in so many other areas. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to return to the regime that we inherited in 1979, is he saying also that his Front-Bench colleagues support a top tax rate of 98p in the pound?

     

    Q6. Mr. Irvine : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Irvine : Does my right hon. Friend agree that local management of schools is proving to be immensely popular and that many head teachers, who previously had significant reservations about it, are now included among its supporters? Does he agree that the reason for its popularity is the greater flexibility and the improved decision-making powers that it gives to individual schools?

    Mr. MacGregor : As my hon. Friend will know, I have always been a most enthusiastic supporter of the grant maintained schools. That being so, I strongly agree with what he has said. He has drawn attention to two of the virtues of grant maintained status. It is because of such virtues that grant maintained schools are becoming more and more popular and more and more likely to spread throughout the country. My hon. Friend’s point about headmasters is very relevant. I should like to quote one headmaster, who, in the first instance, was opposed to his school becoming grant maintained. After a series of commendations he said, “I wouldn’t miss what is happening here for anything. It is the most professionally fulfilling period of my entire experience as a head.”

     

    Q7. Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Wigley : Is the Lord President aware that thousands of people have extreme difficulty in paying the poll tax for the current financial year and that within three to four weeks they will be receiving bills which will be even greater in many areas? Does he realise that for them a promise of legislation in two years’ time to overcome the poll tax is not sufficient? They need an answer now–this April. Can he give an undertaking that the Government will bring in radical provision for those people to help save those on low incomes, pensioners and disabled people from the full impact of the poll tax in the next financial year?

    Mr. MacGregor : The answer is twofold. First, the community charge reduction scheme, in addition to the other reduction and benefit schemes, will benefit large numbers of those people. As the hon. Gentleman knows, over half of community charge payers will benefit from that scheme. That will be immediate from the start of April this year. The second answer is for them to vote out at the first available opportunity the high-spending authorities which have caused so much of the increase.

    Miss Emma Nicholson : Will my right hon. Friend remind Her Majesty’s Opposition that because of the new initiatives on the community charge and on the back of the excellent service that the Leader of the other place has offered to Ribble Valley, come this Thursday the Conservative candidate will be returned triumphantly and the Liberal and Labour candidates will return to the oblivion from which they came?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that that will mean an excellent new Member for the House in succession to my noble Friend, Lord Waddington, who performed such sterling services for Ribble Valley over the years.

     

    Q8. Mr. Alan W. Williams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Williams : Does the Leader of the House know that Mr. Nigel Evans, the Conservative party candidate in the Ribble Valley by-election, said yesterday in a press conference that he favoured the principle of everyone making a contribution towards the community charge–that is, he favoured the retention of the poll tax? Was he expressing a personal view or has someone leaked to him the results of the Government’s review : that the Government intend to keep the poll tax?

    Mr. MacGregor : I find that large numbers of people throughout the country, as well as in the House, think that one of the important features of the community charge is that everyone makes some contribution to the local services from which all benefit.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 4 March 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 4th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    IRA Terrorism

    Mr. Latham : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the Government’s programme to combat IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland and mainland Britain.

    The Prime Minister : The Government remain totally committed to defeating terrorism, whether it emanates from the Provisional IRA, or from other Northern Irish terrorist groups.

    In Northern Ireland, we will continue with the security policy described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his statement of 8 November 1990.

    In order to ensure that anti-terrorist legislation is appropriate to the current security threat, the Government have laid before Parliament the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. In addition to re-enacting virtually all the provisions of the existing emergency law this Bill would provide the police and armed forces with the legal means to protect the community effectively, and at the same time provide appropriate safeguards for individuals. The specific proposals before Parliament include new powers to examine documents; a new criminal offence of possession of items intended for terrorist purposes; new powers in relation to closed crossings on the Anglo-Irish land border; a new offence of directing the activities of an organisation concerned in terrorism; new powers to enable the Secretary of State to make statutory codes of practice in connection with the exercise of emergency powers; and new powers to facilitate the investigation of terrorist financing and to confiscate the assets of those who have gained personally from their involvement in this.

    In Great Britain, responsibility for protecting the public from the threat of attack from the Provisional IRA rests primarily with the police. The Government welcomed the appointment last year by the Association of Chief Police Officers of the head of the Metropolitan police anti-terrorist branch as national co-ordinator of PIRA investigations. The Government will seek to ensure that the police have the right structure for combating terrorism; that they have sufficient resources; and that they have sufficient powers. To this end it is in the Government’s view essential that the House should approve the continuation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The Act contains special provisions for the proscription of Irish terrorist organisations; for the exclusion of suspected terrorists from Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole ; for the restraint and confiscation of terrorist funds; for the arrest and detention without charge of suspected terrorists for a maximum period of seven days on the authority of the Secretary of State; and for the system of police controls at ports and airports throughout the United Kingdom.

     

    Equal Opportunities

    Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister how many and what percentage of officers in each grade (1-7) and overall in the Cabinet Office are (a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities, respectively.

    The Prime Minister : The number of women and ethnic minorities in each grade (1-7) and overall serving in the Cabinet Office is :

    Grade |Women |Percentage |Members of ethnic minorities <1> |Percentage

    ——————————————————————————————————————————

    1 |0 |0 |0 |0

    2 |1 |6 |0 |0

    3 |2 |11 |0 |0

    4 |0 |0 |0 |0

    5 |9 |18 |1 |2

    6 |15 |35 |0 |0

    7 |36 |21 |0 |0

    ——-

    Overall in the Cabinet Office 839 56 51 3.5

    <1>These figures are based on a voluntary questionnaire.

     

    The Gulf

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty’s Government first learned of the announcement made on Baghdad radio on 25 February that Iraqi forces were withdrawing from Kuwait; at what time an authoritative English translation of the announcement was made; and whether he made any contact with allied partners in Operation Granby as a result of the radio statement.

    The Prime Minister : The substance of the Baghdad radio broadcast, made at 2230 hours GMT on 25 February, became known to us at 2245 hours GMT. A full English translation became available to us at 2324 hours GMT. We are in constant touch with our coalition partners over many aspects of the Gulf crisis.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment was made of the applicability of Geneva convention article 23 before allied airforces in Operation Granby were given orders to bomb convoys of Iraqi military forces withdrawing from Kuwait.

    The Prime Minister : Article 23 of the regulations attached to Hague convention IV of 1907 states that it is especially forbidden to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion. The coalition made it clear that it would not attack unarmed Iraqi soldiers, but that retreating formed combat units continued to pose a threat and would therefore be treated as hostile.

     

    International Agreements

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now make it his policy for Ministers of Her Majesty’s Government to answer questions from Members that seek clarification of Her Majesty’s Government’s interpretation of international treaties, agreements and United Nations resolutions to which the United Kingdom is a party and affect policy decisions of the Government.

    The Prime Minister : It has always been our policy to answer hon. Members’ questions as well as we can.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Local Government Conference – 2 March 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference made on Saturday 2nd March 1991 at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Gulf

    Mr Chairman, over the last few weeks the conflict in the Gulf has been uppermost in all our minds. Thousands of young men and women from the communities you represent took part in the battle to free Kuwait. Some gave their lives in that cause and all of us have been touched by their loss. Our hearts go out to their families and friends. We will never forget those young men. Nor will we forget what each of those out there in the Gulf has accomplished. Our duty now is to work for a peace worthy of their achievement and to bring those men home as soon as possible. I know this Conference will pay tribute to their courage.

    I am delighted to be with you today. I began my political career in local government some time ago. And I am proud of that. I enjoyed it. I learned a lot from it. Local government is important. It is just as much a trust to be elected as a councillor as to hold office in the Government. Because to be elected is to undertake obligations. That is the trust. And it is something that no-one in politics must ever forget.

    Lessons from Lambeth: Conservative and Labour compared

    Many years ago, I became Chairman of housing in what was then Conservative Lambeth. And I had good reason to know the housing problems far too many people faced. Indeed in some ways I had shared them. I knew that it was the duty of a Conservative council to help. To help obtain for people what they wanted, not provide for them what the Courcil wanted. We were innovators. We built in Lambeth council houses for sale. We opened the first ever Housing Aid Centre. And we took housing officers out to meet the people of Lambeth face to face and hear their problems. And very interesting meetings some of those turned out to be too.

    Few people wrote then about what was happening in Lambeth. It was quiet work and efficient – typically Conservative, in fact. How things changed under Labour. Then Lambeth became famous. Famous for putting politics before people, personal ambition before public service. Famous for red flags flying over the Town Hall. For bureaucracy blossoming, while services withered away. For costs surging through the roof, while quality was kicked out of the window. The very worst in local government. That’s Labour’s legacy.

    And, sadly, not only in Lambeth. Camden and lslington; Haringey and Hackney; Derbyshire and Liverpool. All Labour Councils. And all bywords for incompetence and waste. Each of them proving that Labour local government – like Labour national Government – never works. It never has. And, what’s more, it never will.

    Commitment to, principle of local government: aims of local government

    Mr Chairman, we are here for one reason. Not just because we have served or do serve in local government. But because we care about it. Because we know that when it operates well local government is the best way to see that local services fit local needs. Up and down the country Conservative councillors, like those of you here today, have shown what good local government can mean. You have put in long hours and made many sacrifices. You can be proud of what you have achieved.

    But seeing that local services fit local needs doesn’t mean councils must themselves provide every service. Far from it. I believe in the principle of the enabling council. A council that acts on behalf of the public, not the providers. Its job is to ensure that good services are delivered, seek out new methods, and call in specialist skills, wherever those are needed. Its job is to buy in the best quality at the best price, whether from its own workforce or outside, and then to put it to the benefit of its local community. That enabling role is the key to good local government.

    But if councils are to be confident and perform well, they must also be secure about their role. They need certainty. They need to know what their tasks are. I am determined to see a stable and lasting framework created for local government in the 1990s. And by that I mean a structure that is effective and will endure. A system of finance that is sustainable. For only that will attract people of high calibre into local service. No-one here should be in any doubt. Good local government will be vital in this Governments strategy to widen opportunity and spread responsibility throughout the country.

    Past achievements of Conservatives in local government

    No-one should question our commitment to that aim. This Party was the principal architect of modern local government.

    – from the enhancement of Victorian city centres:

    – through the social improvements of Neville Chamberlain and others in the first half of this century;

    – to the new ideas and methods of public service pioneered by Conservative Councils today.

    This Government will support all of you in building on that great tradition of reform.

    Need to look to the long-term, not immediate worries

    The last twenty-five years have not been easy for local government. Amidst many pressures it has been damaged. The infiltration of the Loony Left and the shifty centre into too many of our town halls has seen to that.

    Local Government has become too defensive, too inward-looking, too much obsessed with means and too little about ends. Over the next years I want us to look again to the longer-term role of local councils. I want to chart out a fresh vision and a better course for local government.

    Finance: cutting costs and relieving needs, attack on non-payment

    Many of you, of course, are already involved in the debate about finance. Michael Portillo has already discussed that with you this morning. I want to make just three points today:

    First, no system of local government finance can last if the public think their money is being wasted and their services are poor. More Conservative Councils are proving to the public that charges can be cut, yet services developed further. They deserve our praise for that. And the rest of our Party must follow their lead.

    Secondly, we have already made considerable efforts to see that most help with local costs goes to those who most need that help. We are now improving support for those whose bills were most affected by change through the Community Charge Reduction Scheme.

    Take Lancashire, for example, where as we all know particular problems were faced. There, the relief available next year for couples living in smaller properties – half average rateable value – will in some cases be up to £500. On average across the nation people will pay £100 less than the headline community charge. The help we are giving will benefit some 18 million people nationwide. It deserves to be far better known. And in the next few weeks we must ensure that it is.

    The point I will make on finance is this. Conservatives help people in need in practical ways and with practical solutions. How different from those in the Labour Party who posture about solidarity, but push others into breaking the law. Non-payment can be justified in no circumstances. Never by Labour councillors claiming attendance allowances paid out of the community charge. And least of all by Labour MPs. What they don’t pay, others less well off have to pay for them.

    It is a disgrace that Labour MP after Labour MP is trooping into the courts to proclaim his defiance of the law. Of this I’m sure: those who break the law have no right to make the law. It should be a source of lasting shame to the Labour Party and its Leader that no action has been taken to crack down on behaviour like theirs.

    Bad management discredits local government

    But it’s not just over the community charge that Labour leadership has failed. Labour Council after Labour Council and Liberal Council after Liberal Council has wasted the public’s money and let their services run down. You all know some of the examples:

    – The council that spent millions of pounds on a new civic centre – and forgot to include a council chamber. Big spending on bureaucracy; no accountability to the public. The very model of modern Labour local government.

    – There was the council that lost over £5 million in running a time-share operation. Only the Labour Party could give the time-share sharks a good name.

    – And then there was the council that sent a member and an officer on a fact-finding trip about football. What a coincidence that the trip was to Italy during the 1990 World Cup. Labour’s version of the penalty shoot-out; the council shoot out to the sun; and the public pay the penalty.

    It is this sort of nonsense that has cast discredit on local government. Because of this sort of nonsense the good work of the many has been missed among the excesses of the few.

    The Conservative Agenda: less government, more service

    We in this Party must now set a new agenda, provide reforming leadership, and rebuild confidence in local government. Many of you have already begun. Conservative Councils have led the way in cutting back bureaucracy, bringing in private sector skills, and concentrating attention on service to the public.

    But we need to do more. There are still attitudes that are wrong. Still too many who see competitive tendering as a threat. Still too many who think the answer to a problem is to appoint an officer. In my experience the better answer is often to disappoint an officer. And still too many committees, too many reports, too many members struggling in piles of paper and mountains of unread bumph.

    What we need in local government is less paper and more action. Less empire-building and more innovation. Less government and more service. That must be the Conservative way.

    Simpler local government

    The very essence of local government should be variety. Some people feel there are too many layers of local government in some areas. It may well be that we need to simplify the structure and reduce the number of bodies we now have overall. We have that position under review. And here, too, your views will count.

    But some change surely must come. I do not think that the pattern of local government has to be uniform. Why should it be the same everywhere? Differing structures might be right for different parts of the country. Local opinion must play its part. But on no account will we create wasteful new tiers of local government as Labour and Liberals propose.

    Finance and structure are important. But in my view they should be part of, and not control, the arguments about local government as a whole. The key questions are simple. They are about functions. What is local government for? What is the proper range of its activity? Who is it seeking to serve? And how best can it achieve those ends?

    Those are the key issues. And in developing new ways to answer those questions, I want our party to stay in the lead. There are two areas, above all, where I want new ideas to be felt – in education and in housing.

    Education – local authorities to assist not obstruct, change

    I have spoken elsewhere of my belief that education must be top of our agenda for the 1990s. We are now giving more influence to governors and parents. The best local authorities encourage that change; the worst stand in its way. I deplore the way in which some councils have held back funds from schools keen to take on local management.

    In some places too much of the schools budget goes into administration and too little into the classroom. We need to shift that balance. The role of LEAs is changing. There will still be crucial tasks to perform. But we Conservatives believe that it is the wishes of parents, not the politics of the councillors, that must determine priorities in school.

    Housing – putting people first

    In housing, too, changes must come. And, again, Conservative councils are in the lead. Conditions on far too many of our housing estates – owned, managed and maintained by local authorities – are an absolute disgrace. Since 1979 we have set out to tackle those problems:

    – Giving tenants the right to buy.

    – Developing the role of housing associations.

    – Offering new freedoms to those unable to buy their own homes.

    Competition, choice and freedom are as always the public’s friend. So what is it that we want to see? In housing I want to see home ownership and our housing reforms go further. But I also recognise that for the foreseeable future many families will remain in properties under council control. They, too, deserve the best service. All too often they are left with the worst.

    As one former Labour MP said of Labour Hackney Council, “tenants were not treated as people at all.” Tenants not treated as people at all. What does that tell you of the arrogance of Labour Councils” It tells me that nothing has changed since I lived under the control of Labour’. And it tells me, too, that if there is one thing this Party must do, it is to sweep out of our town halls the outrage of attitudes like those.

    Housing management is one of many areas where more use should be made of outside skills. Here, too, the job of councils is to choose the best way of providing what people want. It is to protect their own staff if they are not performing up to the mark. Where there is patronising of tenants, or slow response to repair jobs, it needs to be exposed, not excused.

    Yet, all too often, Labour councils react the other way. If a council’s housing management is not delivering results, then it is high time to bring in a new management team. That is true of many other white collar as well as manual tasks. Legal departments. Computer services. Conveyancing. Aspects of planning. All these could be on the competitive tendering list. And when new management is brought in I for one don’t want to hear that every one of yesterday’s administrators have become today’s monitors, and that life in the old town hail is as cosy as ever before.

    More contractorization

    Conservative councils are making those changes voluntarily. But Labour councils are not. So what we will be looking at in Government is how well compulsory competitive tendering has worked so far, at where we need to revise existing legislation, and in what new areas contracting should be applied. These techniques offer new opportunities for councils to improve their services and provide better quality for the public.

    It is not just because we back private sector approaches in themselves. It’s not only private we back; it’s quality and cost- effectiveness from wherever it comes. But we cannot – and will not – accept that the public should be denied the most efficient service their council can provide.

    So what is the system of local government we want to see? It is a system that reacts to the choices of the public and which doesn’t deny them. It is a system where those who check on quality are independent from those who provide it. It is a system where information on how services are doing is shared with the public and not hidden from them. It is after all that very same public who depend on and pay for the services themselves. Above all, I want a system in which a good new idea is seen, not as a threat to the workforce, but an opportunity for the public. The principle of competitive tendering will help carry forward all these objectives. And that is why you in Conservative Councils have been the first to embrace it.

    It is because Conservative councils have always been leaders in innovation and change, that Conservative local government is trusted, while Labour local government is feared. You can have pride in the part you have played to bring that about.

    Neil Kinnock skulks away when the Press ask him about his own local council. Hardly surprising that he does. We took Ealing from Labour last year. Then there were changes. The gender advisers, whatever they were, in every council department were moved. The animal rights officer who was trying to close pet shops – he lost his job. But the key facts are these. Thanks to a Conservative Council Neil Kinnock pays less and receives more than he did under Labour. Funny really that he never mentions it. He’s uncharacteristically silent when the Press come to call.

    Well, we in this hall are not going to stay silent. We are going to tell people what Conservative local government has achieved and will achieve in future. We are going to set out our commitment to first- class local services. Together on May 2nd we are going to drive Labour and Liberal councils out of office throughout Britain. And we are going to put into office Conservative councils, committed to the principles we have set out today, and ready to restore integrity and pride to local government in every part of our country.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the End of the Gulf War – 1 March 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments made on Friday 1st March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    [Mr Major was asked about how he had coped during the Gulf War and what pressures he had been under now that there was peace]

    It is almost impossible to answer questions like that without seeming either pretentious or evading them, if I could perhaps make that point at the outset of seeking to reply. I think I have learned several things, I do not know that necessarily they are all about myself. I have learned a great deal I think about the British instinct. I am filled with admiration for the way in which the troops I met out there felt about what they had been asked to do. It cannot be easy for young men to be asked to go out there and fight for principles that their government think are important.

    They are professional soldiers, they were asked to go out there and do the job, and I learned a great deal about the British when I went out there and talked to them, I do not just mean the officers, I mean the men who were out there as well. I spent a good part of the day talking to them and the way in which they responded and what they felt about it was quite remarkable, I think I learned a great deal about them when I was there and I think it gave me a great deal more confidence that what we were doing was right. So I think the first thing I learned was about the British generally, that they were amazingly resolute with this sort of problem.

    The thing I learned about myself I do not think was new and that was that when you have something that is difficult and pressured you need to assemble the facts, think about the facts, consider the alternatives, weigh the pros and cons of any particular approach, and then reach a conclusion as to how you should proceed. I have always believed that is the right way to make decisions, it is sometimes more boring assembling all the facts and making a snap instinctive decision, but it seems to me that it is a rational way to proceed and I found that reinforced during the last few weeks.

    [Mr Major was asked if he had got much sleep]

    It was mixed, there were occasions when I did not get a lot of sleep, that is true, there were other occasions where I would have got five and a half or six hours a night.