The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Gulf War

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Bush – 16 March 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Bush, held in Bermuda on Saturday 16th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just say by way of introduction, we have had some extremely useful discussions this morning covering a very wide area. I think they have come at a very appropriate time at the end of the Gulf conflict, there is a great deal to discuss, a great deal to have learned from the conflict, and it also gave me the opportunity of expressing to the President the tremendous admiration that is felt in the United Kingdom and elsewhere for the remarkable way in which he led this particular enterprise.

    Amongst the matters we were able to discuss this morning were of course the aftermath of the Gulf, the general position of security in the Middle East, present circumstances in the Soviet Union, the GATT round, the developing situation in South Africa, arms control and an interim report on Secretary Baker’s talks in the Soviet Union. So it was a fairly wide agenda but I will not elaborate on it now, I will invite the President to say a few words and then perhaps we can take your questions.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    Mr Prime Minister, all I want to do is to thank you for the hospitality, thank the Governor General of Bermuda and of course the Premier and say we have enjoyed it. I agree with you that these talks are very very helpful and we are determined, I think it is fair to say, that we are determined now to go forward and each country try to be a catalyst for peace, building on our success in the Gulf. So thank you Sir and I am just delighted to be with you once again.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (CNN):

    In Saddam Hussein’s speech he said the insurgency in the south had been crushed but continued in the north and he also seemed to be issuing a very strong threat once again to the Kurds saying that if they persisted they would be crushed by those who succeeded them?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I have learned long ago not to comment on something that I have not heard or have not authoritatively read, but there is dissension inside Iraq, that is a matter that we are not involved in, and I would simply repeat that Saddam’s credibility remains at an all time low ebb as far as the United States is concerned.

    QUESTION:

    Do you see any role for the British or the Americans forces intervening militarily in Iraq?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I do not, that would be going beyond our mandate. I will say this, that at the tenth meeting certain arrangements were made and certain ground rules spelt out, British and US commanders agreeing, the Saudis and all the coalition forces agreeing in telling Iraq that certain things should not happen – movement of aircraft for example – and so they should not violate the conditions that they agreed to. But having said that, none of us want to move forces into Baghdad, frankly we don’t want any more fighting but they know what the ground rules are and they ought to play by those rules and live by them.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no more to be said, I think that is precisely it.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, in Saddam’s speech he also indicated that he was willing to set up some kind of multiparty system, almost verging on democracy, what do you make of that kind of talk from Saddam Hussein and would that be something that the United States could live with, could Saddam Hussein stay in power in Baghdad under that kind of arrangement?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I would find it very difficult to see a situation under which we would have normalised relations with Saddam Hussein still in power, his credibility is zilch, zero and if he wants to talk about this, fine, but what people are looking for I think is full compliance with United Nations resolutions, it is complying with the ceasefire terms and I do not know what this speech is about, I simply cannot comment on it, but if he is proclaiming that Iraq will be a democratic nation, fine, but I would want to see proof of that, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you mentioned the report of Secretary Baker, what conclusions do you draw about future relations with the Soviet Union in view of the apparent lack of progress on control, both CFE and START?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Insofar as we are concerned, Secretary Baker reaffirmed what I said to Mr Gorbachev a few days ago about the resubordination of the large amounts of Soviet military to the Navy, I think Mr Gorbachev has taken the point, it is a matter he will clearly have to look at. His military are a good deal more hard line about that matter than I think he is but I think he now understands the absolute imperative of sticking to the CFE agreement that he signed. On START I think there is a general wish to proceed with the START talks again and we must hope that that proves to be possible. But we must make sure in my judgment that the CFE agreement itself is actually enacted before one can go too far on START.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I can add to that because the Baker/Gorbachev meeting and Baker/Bessmertnykh meeting sustained very much what the Prime Minister has just said came out of his meeting, so the Soviet position has been, I think the Prime Minister expressed it very well and Jim Baker made clear, as did the Prime Minister in his meetings, that the naval infantry question must be resolved and we have got to go forward in the CFE agreement along the lines that we thought we were entering into.

    QUESTION:

    What kind of steps do you think Iraq needs to take in order for the economic sanctions to be enlisted and is the supervised destruction of their chemical weapons stockpile one of the steps that you think has to be taken?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly would like to see the supervised destruction of their chemical weapons, I think that is extremely important for future security in the Middle East. There are a raft of matters, all of which I think spring out of the Security Council resolutions of recent months, that will need to be incorporated in the ceasefire proposals. There is a considerable amount we need to see. I think we do need to see for example the destruction of the chemical weapons, that is certainly the case. I think there is a good deal else we need to see, we need to make it absolutely clear, and it needs to be absolutely clear from the Iraqis, that they actually recognise the position that now exists in Kuwait and that that is going to be a permanent recognition, we need some assurances on that. I think we have to look at wider issues as well, we will certainly have to look at the question of arms control in the area, that is a matter that will need to be developed I think very probably amongst the Permanent Five though there are other mechanisms for doing it.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    The only thing I could add to that is that some arrangements for peace keeping, perhaps a role for the United Nations, perhaps a role for an Arab force, but there are a lot of details that have to follow but the Prime Minister clipped off the major concerns that we have and I think I will sense here that our coalition is united on this.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One might actually add to that of course the release of Kuwaiti detainees and perhaps some hypothecation of oil revenues in order to meet some of the losses and costs that have been incurred in Kuwait.

    QUESTION:

    There seems to be a growing discussion in Europe about a defence unit for the security of Europeans. What I’m wondering is whether, Mr. Bush, you see this as an exclusion of the U.S. and how you feel that may affect NATO? Because that’s been its traditional role. And Mr. Prime Minister, what’s your thoughts on it?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I think I would start by saying that certainly in the conversation that we had today there are no differences in terms of where the UK and the United States stand. I do not think the United Kingdom is foreseeing the pulling out from our responsibility for security by the United States and so I had discussions on this with President Mitterrand and there have been some nuances of difference perhaps not necessarily between the French and the United States but between some in Europe and the United States and I that think they are manageable differences.

    The United States has a key role, we think that we performed that role adequately in the past and we have every intention of fulfilling what is in our national security interests in the future. And I think a presence where we continue to have a strong NATO for example is in our interests. After all, though tensions are lessened there are still a lot of question marks out there. But I can say in terms of my discussions with the Prime Minister that I do not think we have differences on this point, but I will leave it to him.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are absolutely no differences at all. NATO has very successfully kept the peace in Europe since the Second World War, it has been the cornerstone of the peace and the American presence in NATO and the presence of their troops in Europe has been absolutely fundamental to the security of Europe. So we certainly would wish to see absolutely nothing that would damage that. I think what some of the Europeans are concerned about, and I think they are right to be concerned about that, is the fact that Europe will need to make a greater proportion of contribution to the communal defence of Europe but I think that is a contribution that will have to be channelled through NATO and there is no difference whatsoever between the United States and Britain on that point.

    QUESTION:

    Both of you said you don’t want to see any more fighting in Iraq. I’m wondering, how do you intend to enforce the terms of the tent agreement? Would that be just another thing under the umbrella of lifting economic sanctions, or do you have something else in mind?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think we want to go into detail about that, we have made it very clear to the Iraqis what we expect them to do, I think we must wait for them to do it, it is our expectation that they both will and should.

    QUESTION:

    Are you ruling out military action?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    We are not ruling anything in or out but we are making clear, as General Schwarzkopf did yesterday, that they must abide by agreements made and there are many agreements in the future that we have not ironed out, many provisions in the future that we expect Iraq will comply with, the Prime Minister having set out a very good litany right here. So we are not trying to elevate the chance of further military action, when we said ceasefire we ceased firing and we want to see that formalised and that is what we are approaching and I will not go into hypothesis on that.

    QUESTION (Eleanor Goodman):

    A question first about the roles for Britain and the United States as catalysts for peace. Do you see this as two separate roles or is there a specific role for Britain in that and a specific role for the United States?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I don’t look at it that way but we have separate initiatives. For example, the Prime Minister went over and amongst his talks in the Middle East itself he began exploring avenues for peace. Secretary Baker is doing that now on the trip that he took. Now I guess he is on his way to Turkey. On each step of the way, each of us will be exploring and then we will have talks like this.

    There is going to be probably some United Nations role to play; there is going to be bilateral relations between ourselves – I am speaking now for the United States – and the State of the Israel; we have communications now and contact with Syria – I happen to think that that can be catalytic for peace.

    So we are not talking about an assignment to the United States to do A, B and C and for the UK to do what follows on X, Y and Z or vice versa and we had talks with Mr. Mitterrand about this.

    What we are trying to do is to say: “Look! We now have a renewed Western credibility, certainly Coalition Force credibility, and let us use that to try to bring peace to the Lebanon, try to bring peace to the Israel-Palestine area, the West Bank, etc. and try to bring peace, security and stability to the Gulf”.

    There isn’t one formula yet and I don’t think there will be a single formula until a lot more consultation has taken place. Some have suggested the instant convening of an international conference. The policy of the United States has been a conference at an appropriate time might be useful – that has been our policy for the last eleven years – but we are not going to urge that at this point until we see that it would be productive. We don’t want to have a conference and some people fail to show up if presence there at the conference is an absolute sine qua non for success.

    So we are going to just keep talking, keep consulting but not tarry. I do think that we ought to seize the moment and I know that is the goal of the United States and I gather that after further consultations this morning that that is the role of the UK.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, you speak of the Coalition Force credibility. The Soviets are not part of that Coalition. Secretary Baker met with the Soviets in the last couple of days, you two have discussed the Soviet role in the new Middle East. What is a valid role for the Soviets now, not being a member of that Coalition and just a member of the United Nations? How far do we go?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    You appropriately pointed on the United Nations. The Soviet Union state remains solidly with the United Kingdom, the United States and others in the United Nations. Had that not been the case, obviously the United Nations would not have had the positive role that it had.

    I gather from just a preliminary report – not talking to him but a preliminary report – that Mr. Zoellick passed along to me and to the Prime Minister that Jim Baker felt that after talks with Gorbachev and Bessmertnykh, the Soviets wanted to still play a constructive role. They have interests in the Middle East. We don’t view this as something that is against us and so true, they were not in the Coalition in the sense of having forces but they worked very cooperatively with us in the United Nations and inasmuch as there should probably be some UN role – perhaps the blue helmets along some peace-keeping line – we want to continue to work with the Soviets; we want to continue to keep that cooperation.

    So I don’t think their failure to have troops on the ground in the Middle East – which we did not ask them to do incidentally – is a detriment to their playing a useful role for peace. They know a lot of the characters there. I would love to see them improve relations with the State of Israel – I think if they did that, that could be a very important point in how this peace is brought about.

    After the Baker talks – and again, I would defer to the Prime Minister who did have his own talks with Mr. Gorbachev on that – I see them as still wanting to play a constructive – not obstruction – but constructive role with whatever follows on.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can certainly confirm that. In the discussions I had with Mr. Gorbachev less than a fortnight ago, he made that perfectly clear in perfectly clear terms, that he wished to play a constructive role in an ongoing settlement in the Middle East and I see no reason to doubt his bona fides in that respect.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, if a formal cease-fire cannot be arranged until Saddam stops deploying his remaining forces, what does that mean for the timetable for the return of the British forces back to the UK and if American forces do become involved, would British forces become involved as well?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are too many premises there that may not come about to be precise. I don’t know precisely when we will have a ceasefire. We are looking at the moment at what a cease-fire Resolution might contain and it may be quite a substantive Resolution – there is quite a lot to get in it – and I do not think we can address those secondary questions until we have that Resolution. It may be that we will have one broadly ready to begin presenting at the end of next week but I think there can be no certainty about that.

    At the moment, the return of British troops continues. We had Security Council Resolutions to meet when we sent the troops there; those Security Council Resolutions have been met and the troops are now returning home. But I think the other premises you raised cannot be answered at this stage.

  • PMQT – 14 March 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Alan W. Williams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

    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.

    Mr. Williams : Does the Prime Minister recall saying not so long ago that the poll tax system would be fairer, more acceptable and prove to be enduring? Does he think that he is still clear in his own mind about that?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will be a good deal clearer in his mind about the future of the community charge before very long. It is particularly surprising that, some months after the Labour party produced its own roof tax, it is still unable to answer even the most obvious questions about it.

    Mr. Ian Bruce : My right hon. Friend, in paying tribute to the forces in the Gulf, has very often referred to the training that those people had received. Will he assure the House that, in the “Options for Change” review, while we may change where the training is carried out or the number of people being trained, we will certainly ensure that the quality of training, such as that provided in Portland, is not diminished?

    The Prime Minister : The quality and nature of training is clearly very important. Whatever may happen as we consider “Options for Change” in future, that will not change.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister think that the Ministers who have been responsible for spending £10 billion of taxpayers’ money on the utterly discredited poll tax system should now do the honourable thing and resign?

    The Prime Minister : Shadow Ministers responsible for a scheme that they would foist on the country should explain how it would work. The right hon. Gentleman cannot even tell us, months after his scheme was introduced, what the levels would be in his constituency.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Government have spent and are continuing to spend vast sums on trying to sustain the poll tax system–including the £400 million to set it up, the £300 million a year on trying to maintain it and the £6 billion in an attempt to sweeten it. Does not the Prime Minister agree that any company or public body responsible for spending so much money so wilfully would have the people responsible on their way to gaol, and rightly so?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps the people leading the queue to gaol should be those Labour local authorities which waste more money than anyone else in the country and whose average community charge is £78 higher than that of Conservative authorities.

    Mr. Ward : When my right hon. Friend considers with his colleagues the lessons of the Gulf war, will he bear in mind the need for amphibious capability and in particular the need for amphibious craft for the Royal Marines and such services?

    The Prime Minister : In the aftermath of the Gulf war, we shall need to consider a number of matters to ensure that our armed forces are up to date and relevant. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

     

    Q2. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

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

    Mr. Cryer : While the Prime Minister tries to control the warring factions in the Tory party over the poll tax, will he bear in mind the fact that he could bring immediate relief to the millions of people who are groaning under this vicious poll tax–especially those who have been thrown on the dole queue by his economic policies–by restoring Government grants to local authorities to their 1978-79 level under Labour? At the same time, he would get rid of the political corruption that gives an extra £64 a head to Tory-controlled Wandsworth, while low-paid areas like Bradford are left without.

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is on shaky ground if he wants to discuss local government, given the attitude of Labour local authorities. If he really wants to see how money is wasted and badly handled, he should go to Lambeth.

    Mr. Brazier : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under the principle of accountability, it is long overdue that we should introduce into the House a Question Time for the Leader of the Opposition, so that we could ask what his policies are?

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I think that that is a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure.

     

    Q3. Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

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

    Mr. Wigley : Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Wales want not only an early end to the poll tax, but something done about the iniquitous level of water charges? Since privatisation, there has been a 45 per cent. increase in Welsh Water charges, and the average bill of £195 compares to £137 in Severn-Trent, which gets its water from Wales? When will he start an inquiry into the monopoly profiteering in the water industry?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is right to say that charges have risen sharply under Welsh Water–[ Hon. Members :– “It is absurd profiteering.”] It is not absurd profiteering but the unprecedented £1.8 billion investment programme which is necessary to improve water and sewerage and bring them up to a standard that the people of Wales would wish to have.

     

    Q4. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

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

    Mr. Amess : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the “buy British goods from Basildon” campaign that was introduced recently by myself and our local European Member of Parliament, Patricia Rawlings? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such local initiatives can make a useful contribution to reducing the trade deficit? Socialist Opposition Members should follow our lead in backing rather than bashing Britain.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend, as ever, is very inventive, and I am grateful to him for drawing that campaign to my attention. The key to reducing the trade gap is for British industry to produce goods that people want to buy at competitive prices, which is increasingly the aim of British industry. Many British companies already do just that, and I hope that more people will buy British. It is time that the Opposition supported British companies and stopped knocking Britain whenever they can.

     

    Q5. Mr. Ernie Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

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

    Mr. Ross : Has the Prime Minister had a chance to study the proposal that Prime Minister Mulroney made for some form of arms control initiative? Before the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Bush in Bermuda on Sunday, will he immediately impose a moratorium on arms sales, particularly to the middle east? Will he assure President Bush that the whole country would support an immediate control on the sale and export of arms?

    The Prime Minister : We have to look at the export of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, in particular to the middle east. I expect that we shall take up that matter at the United Nations and elsewhere.

     

    Q6. Dr. Twinn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

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

    Dr. Twinn : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London borough of Haringey has set a community charge £171 higher than neighbouring Conservative Enfield? Does he share the sense of joy of 20,000 of my constituents and of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), who heard yesterday that the local Boundary Commission will not transfer four wards into Haringey? Will he join my hon. Friend and me in congratulating our constituents who fought hard with us to stop the daft idea?

    The Prime Minister : I am unsurprised to hear from my hon. Friend about the level of charge in Haringey. It is, after all, a Labour authority. Perhaps, if Haringey gets a Conservative authority, it will, as in so many other places, get a far lower charge.

     

    Q7. Mr. Fearn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

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

    Mr. Fearn : Is the Prime Minister aware that the figures for housing waiting lists are now at a crisis level, especially in the north-west? Will he institute a crash building programme in local government which would help local government, the people in need and, indeed, the construction industry, which is on its knees?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will know of the estate action programme and the dramatic increase in the funding to many housing associations. I fear that a significant part of the problem is the large number of local authority dwellings that remain unlet with no apparent effort to let them.

    Mr. Sims : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at a time when pressure had to be gently exerted on certain Governments to make a financial contribution to the costs of the Gulf operation, the Government and people of Hong Kong made a donation of £15 million? Will he take this opportunity to express the appreciation of the Government and the House of that gesture?

    The Prime Minister : I am certainly grateful for that contribution. I expressed my thanks to the Governor of Hong Kong and the Executive Council some weeks ago.

     

    Q8. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

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

    Mr. Winnick : Which is likely to come first, a substantial fall in unemployment–the figures for which have risen yet again and which the policies pursued when the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer helped to create–or the ending of the poll tax, which he justified at every opportunity?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, unemployment rose to 7 per cent. across the United Kingdom in the figures announced today. That is high. It is still well below the European average. It is well below France, at 9 per cent., Italy, at 9.9 per cent., Canada, at 9.3 per cent., Spain, at 15.8 per cent. and Ireland, at 14.8 per cent. If Government policies alone determine the level of unemployment, our record is infinitely better than that of any of those countries.

     

    Q9. Mr. Speller : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

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

    Mr. Speller : Has the Prime Minister had any confirmation that poison gas has been used in Iraq in the past few days? What steps is he taking to see that the capacity for chemical and nuclear warfare is destroyed and that that destruction is permanent?

    The Prime Minister : I have no evidence that poison gas has been used, but that is one matter which we shall wish to discuss with our allies in the weeks ahead.

    Mr. Hardy : Would the Prime Minister care to compare his Government’s treatment of the city of Westminster and of the metropolitan borough of Rotherham? Is he aware that Government support per head to Westminster will be 470-odd per cent. higher than that given to Rotherham? Is he aware that if we had had the same treatment, far from charging a low poll tax, our local authority would be giving everyone at least £250 next year?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, the level of support is a good deal higher in inner London boroughs generally, although, as he will know, there is a sharp difference in the level of community charge even between adjacent London boroughs such as Lambeth and Wandsworth.

    Rev. Ian Paisley : Has the Prime Minister been made aware of the statement by Jacques Delors in the European Parliament this week, that the Prime Minister had said that the United Kingdom had substantially changed its position on monetary union? Can he confirm whether this is so, or can he tell us what this change is?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that that is not so. I also confirm that I had the opportunity of telling Mr. Delors that over dinner earlier this week.

    Dr. Reid : Is the Prime Minister aware that, in about an hour and a half, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will publish its report on British Steel’s closure of the Ravenscraig hot strip mill and Clydesdale? Anyone who listened to the information given to that Committee cannot doubt that the report will be a damning indictment of British Steel’s industrial relations policy. Does he recall telling me about three months ago, in a meeting that he was kind enough to have with me, that, should the worst come to Lanarkshire, he would not stand idly by? Since then, another 3,000 workers have been told that they will have to stand idly by, having been made redundant. Can he now tell the people of Lanarkshire what he intends to do, or does he find the same difficulty in making up his mind on that issue as he does on the poll tax?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows precisely what we propose to do. If he racks his brains, he will recall that I told him when we met some time ago. I made it clear to him at our meeting that the Lanarkshire working group had been established now to identify what measures might be needed at some future stage if the mill were to close. That remains the case, as the hon. Gentleman has known for some time.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Chancellor Kohl – 11 March 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with Chancellor Kohl, held in Bonn on Monday 11th March 1991.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen. We have just concluded the Anglo-German consultations with a plenary meeting. Before we address the individual subjects please allow me to make a general remark.

    In the 100 days since Prime Minister Major has taken office an almost unusually friendly relationship and working relationship has developed between the two of us and I am very grateful for that because I think that particularly during these decisive weeks during the Gulf War this has been a very, very important thing for us and I can only say that the personal chemistry between the two of us works excellently and at the same time this is an expression of the very close and friendly relations between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.

    Of course in a number of issues we may be of different opinion, there are many things which we have to discuss if you just only think of the developments within the European Community, but that is a normal thing we think between friends and partners and it does not change anything as far as our, as I said, almost unusually friendly relations are concerned.

    The last month has shown very clearly that there is no alternative at all to a politically strong Europe and to a very close alliance and partnership with our American friends. It is our wish as the Federal Republic of Germany and the Federal Government that the United Kingdom be playing its important and central role in this work of the integration of Europe. The Prime Minister and the individual Ministers have addressed the far ranging issues.

    I would like to mention as the first issue the Gulf conflict. I once again thanked the Prime Minister and his government for the involvement of British troops in the Gulf War together with France, the United States and 25 other nations on behalf of the community of nations, you have liberated Kuwait of a brutal occupation, you have fought for international rights and you have now made enormous sacrifices so that we Germans too many live in a peaceful world.

    In the context of the Gulf conflict we addressed a number of issues. As regards the Middle East and its problems we have agreed that solutions for the conflict must come first of all from the region itself, that we must now create a durable and lasting order of peace and that included in this is the respect for the right of self-determination of the Palestinians and the right of existence of Israel within secure borders. We think that the United Nations has to take a central role here in this whole context and what is important too is that the constructive cooperation between the United Kingdom and the United States which has proved itself, and also the EC incidentally which proved itself, will continue.

    We have talked also about the situation in central and Eastern Europe and South Eastern Europe and also about the situation in the Soviet Union. As you know, the Prime Minister has just spent a few days in the Soviet Union, he sent an exhaustive report on these talks to me right after his meetings and we addressed the subject too here today. But we both agree that what is important now is to confirm the Soviet leadership in its reform course, what is necessary here is that they must not relent in their efforts. This is also in our interest. We talked about incidentally also the situation in Yugoslavia, about the situation which we are somewhat concerned, the difficulties there. I talked about the visit of the Polish Prime Minister here only recently.

    Then we addressed a number of issues belonging to European policy, we talked about the inter-governmental conferences leading up to economic and monetary and political union. We know that we have quite a way to go there, we know that there are differences of opinion here, but the two of us have very clearly demonstrated that we have an interest in working together in order to remove final obstacles and to promote this idea, this work of integration. In this context I underlined the thrust of the Federal Republic of Germany, it is important that both conferences make progress in parallel and will both be concluded at the same time. After the individual Cabinet Ministers gave their report, we agreed that the consultations between the respective Ministers on both sides are to be intensified.

    In one word we agree that on the road towards Europe the United Kingdom is a very important partner for us Germans and will remain so and that this partnership and this friendship will be something which will be taken care of very carefully by us.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, Chancellor Kohl has given you a very full account of our talks today and I have only a few points that I would wish to add.

    Firstly, perhaps I can thank you, Helmut, for you hospitality today and that of your colleagues. I know that all our colleagues believe the Summit has been a very successful and equally important I believe a very friendly occasion. It is particularly significant as the first Anglo-German Summit since the unification of Germany and perhaps I can repeat again how much Britain welcomed that historic event and how warmly we congratulate you, Helmut, and Hans Dietrich Genscher for your part in bringing that about.

    You and I have had two meetings in the last few months and we have had the opportunity of very regular contact by telephone. We did keep in particularly close touch throughout the whole period of the Gulf conflict and perhaps I may repeat today Britain’s gratitude for the very generous financial contribution which Germany made to our very considerable costs in the Gulf operation.

    In our discussions today we were able to look ahead to the next stage. We agreed on the importance of regional security arrangements and of progress in resolving the Arab/Israeli dispute. We very much welcomed President Bush’s recent speech and agreed to support his efforts.

    We also discussed developments in the Soviet Union and my recent meeting with Mr Gorbachev. In that, too, we agree on the way ahead. We shall continue to encourage reform and support President Gorbachev for so long as he pursues reform. We also support the aspirations of the Baltic Republics, but we do believe that they can only be achieved through negotiation and we have both separately made that clear both to the Soviet authorities and also to the Baltic Republics themselves.

    We had the opportunity today of talking about developments in the European Community and in particular the inter-governmental conferences on political union and economic and monetary union. Both our governments have now tabled treaty texts and we were able to confirm that there was some important common ground between them, for instance on the need for economic convergence before trying to move beyond the second stage of economic and monetary union. We agreed that our experts should get together to align our views on this even more closely.

    We had a very good discussion on the important matter of co-operation on defence. We both want to see Europe have a common defence identity but we are equally clear that that must not be at the expense of NATO, NATO remains the cornerstone of defence and our closer European co-operation should take place within it, using the Western European Union as a bridge, and that is essential in our view to maintaining the United States’ commitment to Europe..

    We discussed the situation in South Africa, welcoming the very great progress which has been made towards abolishing the last traces of apartheid, we both want to see early progress on lifting the remaining sanctions against South Africa. We also had the opportunity of touching on Turkey, Yugoslavia, Romania and some other particularly difficult areas in Eastern Europe.

    In the Plenary Session we had reports from our Ministers on a variety of other points. I do not think it would be prudent to go through them all, nor indeed would we have time, but we did express particular satisfaction that the GATT negotiations are now under way once more in Geneva. Both our governments want to see these negotiations brought to a successful conclusion just as soon as possible.

    Let me just add finally that I think the message that emerges from this Summit is the extent and the warmth of the coming together in relationships between Britain and Germany. In Britain we are very pleased with this and we recognise the very important part which you, Helmut, have played personally in it and we wish to see it continue. I am sure myself that Europe is stronger when Britain, France and Germany are working together and Britain is playing a full part at the very centre of the European Community. So I believe these have been most useful discussions, a good day for Germany, a good day for Britain and a good day for Europe.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Have the remarks of former Prime Minister, Maggie Thatcher, been helpful in your talks today and what role did they play?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We were discussing my comments today on the relationship between our two countries and I think you have just heard what they were.

    QUESTION:

    As regards the Economic Union, you said that there is a certain kind of rapprochement between the two countries, particularly as regards the conditions for creating a Central Bank of Europe in the second phase. Do you think that is at all possible and that there is an even greater rapprochement between Bonn and London than between Bonn and Paris in this matter?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I don’t think that the development will run along the lines you indicate in your question, that there is going to be a sort of rapprochement on one side but not the same kind of commitment on the other side. I think John has put this very succinctly here and I will say it in my own words.

    It is very important for European development that France, the United Kingdom and Germany go together and make a common effort. Everyone knows that we have a lot of work, a lot of ground still to cover in Political Union as well as in Economic and Monetary Union but I would like you to consider the progress which we have already made since Rome.

    We have now, in March 1991, agreed that by the end of 1992 we conclude our business; that means that we are halfway along the road and we are thinking about a lot of things; we are thinking about the possibilities of striking compromises but let me say I have no doubt at all in my mind that we will complete things successfully. My aim is that we do this together. I do not want anyone to have the feeling that he is left out in the cold or being pushed into a corner which is why I do think that this is going to be a concerted joint effort.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, only a few days ago you met with President Gorbachev. How grave is the danger do you think for Western Europe in the case of failure of the Soviet President?

    The second question in this context is haven’t we, over the last weeks and months, forgotten a little bit in view of the Gulf War, the developments in Eastern Europe? Haven’t we neglected them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe we have neglected them. It is certainly true in terms of the public presentation that self-evidently what has been happening in the Gulf has been in the forefront of people’s minds but I don’t think the importance of what is happening in the Soviet Union has escaped from the mind either of the British Government or the German Government for a single moment – it clearly is very important.

    In the meeting I had last week with Mr Gorbachev, he made no secret of hiding the difficult decisions that exist there for him and no-one can be entirely certain how they will develop. What was clear to me is that he is a very formidable man facing up to this problems and that he has faced up to a lot of problems in the last few years and come through them successfully and I believe the position that Britain would take would be exactly the same position that Germany would take: for so long as Mr Gorbachev continues to pursue reform he will both deserve and enjoy our support and for so long as he continues reform we would very much hope that he remains in his present position in the Soviet Union.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, both implicitly and explicitly, you have been underlining the different approach that you are taking to the previous Prime Minister, so how much did you take into account the sort of things that she was saying this weekend?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure that I make quite the distinction that you make. If you actually consider the position in terms of Britain’s involvement in the Community ten or eleven years ago when Mrs Thatcher became Prime Minister, it was sharply less than that involvement in the Community that I inherited a few months ago. For example, a large part of the thrust for the Single Market was actually pursued by the British Government with Mrs Thatcher as Prime Minister. So I think sometimes the distinctions that people draw are inaccurate and I would not view them as you express them.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor, do you think it all possible that joint units between the Federal Republic and the British Command can be instituted and that they can be operable outside of the NATO treaty area?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    First of all, as regards the second part of your question, you know our constitution and the present situation there. Without a change in our constitution, which is under discussion now, a question leading in that direction is inconceivable.

    As to the future development, nobody can make any predictions there but I could envisage that at a later date developments could be initiated which would prepare the ground for something like that. Why not after all?

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, to what extent did you discuss with Chancellor Kohl the details of your hard Ecu plan and how much agreement was there between the two of you on that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did not discuss the details of that. As an ex-Finance Minister, I know that is best left to Finance Ministers and alas, as my Finance Minister is within days of a Budget he was not here today, so we are not discussing the particular details of the hard Ecu.

    We did run across the broad thrust of Economic and Monetary Union in the way I described a few moments ago, but we did not enter into the underlying and very technical detail.

    I indicated earlier the areas of agreement that actually exist between our texts. For example, if you take the substantive matters on Economic and Monetary Union, there is very considerable agreement about the emphasis on economic convergence before you move to the second stage – that is a vital agreement and it exists between ourselves and Germany. There is also agreement about the desirability for hardening the Ecu; we both have separate technical ways in which we think that can be brought about but that is implicit in both the British Treaty text and in the German treaty text.

    I think those are two very substantial areas of agreement which were not there some time ago and which are essential if we are to see our way through to a satisfactory conclusion. I share the view expressed by the Chancellor – I believe it will be possible to do that.

    QUESTION:

    Chancellor, do you agree with the Prime Minister in the assessment of European defence, that is to say in the fact that WEU is only under NATO auspices?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    We have always maintained that NATO is indispensable and that even against the background of all that we are going to do for the foreseeable future we must find a system which allows us to completely include our American friends with whom we have entered into an alliance. I have never maintained or understood quite frankly the position as an “either/or” – on the one hand the Federal Republic of Germany and its relationship with the United States and on the other hand the Federal Republic of Germany and its relationship with our European friends – and that goes both for the British and the French. It is not an “either/or” situation; it is always a situation of both involved being here and I can’t quite understand this discussion because during the CSCE Summit meeting in Paris, we quite agreed as to how we saw the future common European house where both Canadians and Americans have a very firm place indeed, a very firm foothold.

    QUESTION:

    Could I ask the Prime Minister another question about Mrs Thatcher’s recent statements? You keep saying there aren’t any differences with Mrs Thatcher and she keeps banging on about Germany dominating the rest of Europe and you don’t seem to be doing that. Therefore, can I ask you straightforwardly do you think Germany is about to dominate the rest of Europe, yes or no?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You may ask your question as you wish to ask it; I will exercise the freedom to answer it as I wish to answer it!

    I think there is a development in Europe; the development in Europe affects both Germany and the United Kingdom and I think it is important that we develop together and both play an important part in the centre of the Community. I have made that clear on a number of occasions and all being well, I hope to make it clear again in a speech in half an hour’s time.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    John, I would be very disappointed if Mr. Marsh had not asked a question as to Mrs Thatcher’s view on all this and when you come back again he is going to ask again and this is something for which we highly estimate him!

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC):

    Could I ask the Chancellor, are you disappointed that the British Government have not accepted the aim of a single currency in Europe?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    I do not have the impression that the British Government is at all disappointed; the British Prime Minister said earlier on that we both work along those lines which allow us to attain this objective and one cannot expect that during these few hours which we have that all problems can be solved. Thank God, we have time now and we will use it to come to a reasonable result.

    QUESTION (Nick Gowing, Channel 4 News):

    Prime Minister, you have said that Europe will be stronger with Germany and France together with Britain at the heart of Europe. I am wondering how far you believe that message is now getting through to the rest of Europe, that you feel that your partners now believe that Britain is at the heart of Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nick, it is a good question but I think the people to answer that question are the rest of Europe and not me. I hope they accept that that is the case. We have been members off the European Community for a long time. Because we are at the heart of the Community and in my view must stay so, does not necessarily mean we will agree with everything that all our colleagues may say and do and equally, they will exercise the same freedom to disagree with us, but the Community will be infinitely stronger, I think, with Britain, France and Germany all clearly in the centre of it working for the future of the Community and I believe that is the way ahead for us.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    John, may I add something if you allow? If the relationship between Bonn and Paris is not on a good footing then people tell us: “You have not done your homework!”. If the relationship is a good one, they accuse us of being too close and forming a sort of axis. If the relationship with London is not a good one, they ask us: “Why are you not doing more in order to improve them?”, if the relationship is a very good one, they accuse us of wanting to dominate others.

    We do not want to dominate anyone, not at all. We know that Europe can only come about if we all show respect for one another. This is not a question of quantity – I am speaking here about the size of the countries – but a question of quality of the input into Europe and that is a very important principle, but isn’t it a good thing if you can write in your newspapers: “They get along fine!”? I think that is a good piece of news, isn’t it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Bad news for them. [Laughter].

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    A question to both Foreign Ministers. The French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas, has said one should convene a special Summit for the European Community in order to think about the consequences of the Gulf War and the possibilities of how to bring about peace in the aftermath of that war? Would you agree to that, both Foreign Ministers?

    MR GENSCHER:

    First of all, I would like to underline that the British Prime Minister has said. We and France as well support the views held and expressed by President George Bush in his recent speech and we also support the endeavours of Secretary Baker. I think that we can state today that over the past few hours Europe and the United States have never held as similar views as regards the settlement of problems in the Near and the Middle East as now. There is a great convergence here and I think that the European powers should now try to draw a record of the developments over the past few months and we will certainly be ready to participate in such a Summit meeting when it has been convened.

    QUESTION:

    When are you going to recognise the Baltic Republics as sovereign states and under what conditions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I answered that in my statement earlier. I certainly said as much as I am going to.

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    The same goes for me!

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 March 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    The Gulf

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty’s Government have made any assessment of the number of (a) Iraqi military, (b) Kuwaitis, (c) Palestinians and (d) other nationals who were killed by Allied forces on the Kuwait to Basra road in the retreating convoy before a ceasefire was declared.

    The Prime Minister : Allied forces had instructions to attack retreating Iraqi units which could continue to pose a threat. We have no information on casualties sustained in these attacks.

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects all prisoners of war held in (a) Iraq and (b) the United Kingdom to be released.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 5 March 1991] : Further coalition prisoners of war were handed over to the International Committee of the Red Cross yesterday and we hope that all Kuwaiti and third-country nationals will be released as soon as possible. Arrangements are being made with the International Committee of the Red Cross for those Iraqis being held in the United Kingdom to be released as soon as possible.

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister what consideration Her Majesty’s Government gave to securing the release of prisoners of war before agreeing to a ceasefire in the Gulf conflict.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 5 March 1991] : Allied offensive operations in the Gulf are currently suspended. The release of all prisoners of war remains a top priority before a formal ceasefire is declared. In adopting resolution 686, the United Nations Security Council has called on Iraq immediately to arrange access to and release of all prisoners of war and detainees, under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 7 March.

    The Prime Minister : 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.

     

    Missile Technology Control Regime

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement on the commitment to be sought from Iraq to destroy its ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction, Official Report, 28 February, column 1117, if he will make available to the United Nations appropriate resources and technical expertise to permit the supervision to which he refers.

    The Prime Minister : We are considering what type of international supervision would be necessary for the destruction of such weapons. We would be willing to consider making available appropriate resources and technical expertise if necessary.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to his statement of 28 February, Official Report, column 1117, he will make it his policy to give consideration to inviting Iraq to join the missile technology control regime.

    The Prime Minister : We have no plans to do so.

     

    Immigrant Workers, Kuwait

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty’s Government intend to take to alleviate economic hardship of immigrant workers in Kuwait made redundant by the Gulf war.

    The Prime Minister : British nationals returning to the United Kingdom from Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion were eligible to receive travel grants and loans, and where appropriate, other assistance from the Department of Social Security. Assistance for those returning to their homes in other countries is a matter for their own Governments.

     

    Gulf Casualties

    Mr. Ashley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister, with special responsibility for co-ordinating the provision of essentials services to service personnel disabled in the Gulf including counselling, psychiatric care, rehabilitation, social services, jobs and adapted housing.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 5 March 1991] : No. There are well-established arrangements for providing advice and assistance to personnel disabled in the course of their military service.

     

    Economic and Political Union

    Mr. Cash : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress on the intergovernmental conferences on (a) economic and monetary union and (b) political union; and if he will make it his policy to place the submissions made by each member state or the European Commission on (a) and (b) in the Library within one week of their being available to Her Majesty’s Government.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 March 1991] : My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reported to the House on 1 March on progress in the EMU intergovernmental conference, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reported to the House yesterday on the progress in the political union intergovernmental conference. The proceedings and documents of these conferences are confidential as was the case for the intergovernmental conference that resulted in the Single European Act.

  • PMQT – 7 March 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

    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.

    Mr. Colvin : The House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on being the first allied leader to visit the Gulf since the successful cessation of hostilities. When he spoke to our forces there, he spoke for the whole nation. Can he now tell the House when we can expect our forces home so that we may give them the heroes’ welcome that they deserve? Does he agree that it might not be a bad idea to send out to the Gulf 10 builders to assist with the reconstruction of Kuwait for every service man and service woman whom we welcome home?

    The Prime Minister : I can assure my hon. Friends that we are making plans for an appropriate welcome home when the majority of our troops are back. We hope to announce details of that quite soon. I am sure that the House will be pleased to have the excellent news that our forces will start to return home this weekend. The first to come back will be medical reservists, including 205 general hospital, which is returning to Glasgow. The first Tornados, their crews and support staff will also be starting for home in a few days’ time. Some ships are already on their way home. The House will be especially pleased to know that 7th Armoured Brigade, which has been in the desert under the command of Brigadier Cordingley since last October, will begin to leave early next week and we hope that its withdrawal can be completed in two weeks or so. That brigade includes one of the Scottish regiments in the Gulf–the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will publish details later this afternoon.

    Mr. Hattersley : I, too, congratulate the Prime Minister on his visit to the Gulf yesterday, but may I now ask him to turn his mind to domestic politics? Why is Britain the only western European economy in which manufacturing exports are falling, manufacturing output is falling, manufacturing investment is falling and manufacturing employment is falling, all at the same time?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, but less so for the rest. As the right hon. Gentleman knows–but, alas, neglected to mention–the United States and Canada are in recession and growth is slowing in France, Italy and a number of other major economies. In our own economy, inflation is falling and interest rates are beginning to fall. The effects of our policies are beginning to be felt benevolently.

    Mr. Hattersley : The Prime Minister has not even attempted to answer my question. He will not be able to run away from these issues for ever. As he has failed to attempt an answer, I offer him the answer provided to my question by the House of Lords yesterday–that the problem for British manufacturing industry is doctrinaire Government policies and incompetent Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry.

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should read the report more carefully. If he does so, he will find a number of recommendations welcoming actions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has taken in recent months. They have advanced further since their report’s publication and include, for example, the doubling of support for technology transfer and extra support for smaller firms. The right hon. Gentleman should be less selective and more accurate.

    Mr. Hattersley : The Prime Minister must know that the two criticisms that I quoted are exactly the view of the House of Lords. I have no doubt that even the least literate members of the other place will regard the Prime Minister’s answer as a bogus sham.

    The Prime Minister : I had not expected to find such a literate right hon. Gentleman guilty of such tautology. The policies that we have followed are those which assist success in all sectors of the enterprise economy. The right hon. Gentleman forgets the reductions in inflation, on which his party had no policy, the change to one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in the world, when his party would raise taxation, and a labour market surplus which has given this country the lowest number of days lost in strikes for 50 years.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : Does my right hon. Friend agree that a start cannot even begin to be made to bringing Iraq back into the peace-loving family of nations while Saddam Hussein remains in power in Baghdad?

    The Prime Minister : I can most certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that. As I said in the House last week, and am happy to repeat, I believe that Iraq will remain a pariah among nations while Saddam Hussein is there and rules it.

     

    Q2. Mr. Leadbitter : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Leadbitter : Will the Prime Minister now turn to some specifics of the highly critical report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, which was published this week? Is he aware that the report makes it clear that there has been no support for industry from the Government’s policies? The report concludes that there is a grave risk of having no British owned and based manufacturing industry as a result of present policies. Does the Prime Minister agree with the final conclusion in the report–that the Government’s policies show no commitment to industry and no commitment to the national interest?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why manufacturing productivity grew faster in this country in the past decade than in almost any other major industrialised country. As the hon. Gentleman should know, a great deal of the ground lost in previous decades has been made up. We still need to be better at implementing the scientific discoveries made in this country and we are determined to improve on that.

    Mr. Jessel : Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the victory parade will include British Army bands trained at the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller hall in Twickenham?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have heard my hon. Friend, even if my right hon. Friend is not at the House.

     

    Q3. Mr. Archy Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Kirkwood : I congratulate the Prime Minister on his recent visit to the Gulf. Now that he has been able to see for himself the ecological consequences of the Gulf war, does he agree that it is necessary to mount an ecological task force almost on the same scale as the military task force that was needed to liberate Kuwait in order to deal with those consequences? Will he do what he can to ensure that the United Nations takes an international initiative to deal quickly with the pollution in the Gulf?

    The Prime Minister : The action necessary to cure the pollution in the Gulf will require an international effort. Quite how that will be organised is a matter which is still open. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made a cash donation yesterday towards clearance of the pollution.

    Mr. Oppenheim : Bearing in mind the Government’s economic policy and the fact that some people claim that credit controls represent a painless cure for inflation, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on where, under such a system, home buyers might come in the queue for credit, and how, in any case, such a system could be effective without the reimposition of exchange controls?

    The Prime Minister : It is extremely unlikely that credit controls could make any worthwhile contribution to economic management. They are a legacy of the sort of economic management that existed in the 1950s, to which the Opposition seem keen to return.

     

    Unemployment (Scotland)

    Q4. Mr. Tom Clarke : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss unemployment in Scotland.

    The Prime Minister : I have at present no plans to do so.

    Mr. Clarke : Does the Prime Minister recall that during his last brief visit to Edinburgh he said that he would not forget Lanarkshire? Given the huge job losses that we have seen since then, including 3,000 in the steel industry, is not the Prime Minister appalled at the stage of employment training in Lanarkshire? Do a 32 per cent. reduction in funding, trainer job losses and lost trainee places, including places for those with special needs, represent the Government’s commitment? Will the Prime Minister, tomorrow, meet real people with real problems or will his visit to Lanarkshire be simply a public relations charade?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the Lanarkshire working group has been set up to co-ordinate action to tackle the problems facing Lanarkshire on the back of the steel job losses that have occurred. The working group met for the first time on 11 January and will report to me around the end of April.

    Mr. Teddy Taylor : Does the Prime Minister agree that the admittedly serious problems in Lanarkshire and elsewhere in Scotland would become much worse if the House of Commons were daft enough to accept the Labour party’s proposal for an elected assembly with tax-raising powers? Does he agree that such an arrangement would simply scare jobs away from Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : I am in no doubt about that. Were Scotland to have a tax-raising assembly, it would undoubtedly become the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom. That, in turn, would drive away the investment which in the last decade has increasingly made Scotland more efficient, effective and wealthy.

     

    Official Visits

    Q5. Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Nottingham.

    The Prime Minister : I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country, and very much hope to include Nottingham among them.

    Mr. Allen : The right hon. Gentleman will be very welcome. When he comes, will he make a point of meeting mothers and children who have been robbed of £2.30 per week by the Government’s failure to link child benefit to inflation? Arising from the deceitful words in the Conservative manifesto, which said

    “Child benefit will continue to be paid as now”,

    will the Prime Minister, first, answer a question–something he has not done so far today–and, secondly, will he tell the House, and mothers at home– [Interruption.] May I continue, Mr. Speaker?

    Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman is making rather a meal of it.

    Mr. Allen : Will the Prime Minister tell mothers at home of his own complicity in the drafting of those very words in the 1987 manifesto–words which cheated mothers and their children?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have an obligation to review child benefit annually, and do so. On each occasion that child benefit has not been fully uprated, those on the lowest incomes have been fully compensated or more through other social security benefits.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. David Evans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Evans : Does my right hon. Friend agree that under his outstanding leadership we have become a united party determined to defeat inflation and the Labour party when the general election comes? Does he approve of all of us on this side of the House paying our community charge, supporting the prevention of terrorism Act and supporting our troops in the Gulf? If so, is that not in stark contrast with that lot on the other side who are busy scheming to remove their leader and his deputy through supper clubs– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I think that that is enough.

    The Prime Minister : I certainly hope to be in sharp contrast with Opposition Members on many issues. I am delighted to see that normal service has now been resumed.

  • 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.

  • 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.