The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Iraq

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Muscat – 28 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Muscat, given on Thursday 28th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have had the opportunity this morning and over lunch to have very wide ranging discussions with His Majesty Sultan Qaboos. I am most grateful to the Sultan for his hospitality and also for the unfailing help that we have had from His Excellency, Kai Sawawe [phon]. I last met the Sultan at Chequers in July. He is, as you know, a very close friend of the United Kingdom, a long standing political, commercial friend of our country.

    I met him this morning in rather unusual circumstances. His Majesty is in the middle of his “Meet the People” tour and we met this morning near Ibra in Eastern Oman in a tent in the middle of the desert and I suspect that is the first time that the British Prime Minister and the Sultan of Oman have met in such unusual circumstances. The Sultan is a very senior ruler in the region and I very much value the advice and assistance that we receive from him on so many matters.

    We had the opportunity this morning of discussing a very wide range of issues: the Gulf Cooperation Council, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Iran, the Middle East Peace Process and a number of other bilateral matters. I am delighted to say that during our discussions this morning the Sultan told me that the Government of Oman had selected the British Challenger II as the Royal Army of Oman’s next main battle tank. This is the first export order for the Challenger II which is manufactured by Vickers Defence Systems Limited. It is an excellent tank and a tank that has already been chosen for the British Army. The order is for an initial quantity of 18 tanks and 4 Challenger armoured report and recovery vehicles. The initial delivery is for 1995. The Government of Oman intend to purchase a further 18 tanks later.

    It is already clear that this multi-million pound contract will sustain employment at the company’s two facilities in Newcastle and Leeds where some 1,800 people are employed and also of course at the many sub-contractors involved in this programme. I am delighted at this further example of our very close defence cooperation with one of our oldest and most valuable allies in the Gulf,

    QUESTION:

    Oman has called for opening a new [indistinct] in the Gulf and for signing a new political agreement, including the whole Gulf states, even Iraq, do you agree with this call which clearly opposes your tough stand towards Iraq and did you discuss this with the Sultan when you reviewed the current situation in the Gulf? And is Britain going to support possible sanctions against Israel by the UN Security Council to force the Israeli government to take the Palestinian deportees back?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the latter point, the government supported Security Council Resolution, I think it was 799, and the Israeli government are aware of our position on that matter, we very much hope this matter will be resolved very speedily. On the first matter, the Sultan of Oman has been a leader in seeking cooperation between the Gulf states for some time, he has in the past put forward special proposals in the Gulf Cooperation Council, I believe he is right to put forward those proposals and they have our support.

    QUESTION (Oman News Agency):

    We have seen the Security Council resolution being implemented on a selective basis, that international body which is responsible for maintaining world peace and security, are we going to see some reforms being introduced to the Security Council with the international crises on their lists?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure what reforms you might have in mind about the Security Council, it is certainly the position that the United Kingdom wish to see all UN Security Council resolutions implemented, and implemented in full. That has been our position in the past and I can give you that assurance it will remain our position in the future.

    QUESTION:

    We have been witnessing the United States and the UK taking international matters into their hand by continuing their air assaults on Iraq while at the same time ignoring what is happening to the Palestinian deportees, including the Security Council resolution on the matter. Today we learn that the Israeli High Court has supported the government’s decision. Do you have an idea whether your country is going to support sanctions against Israel

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I indicated some moments ago that we supported the Security Council resolution concerning the Palestinians. Just the other day it was British helicopters that helped remove some of the Palestinians who needed medical care and attention. We have made it clear to the Israeli government that we believe those Palestinians should be returned from whence they came, that is our continuing position and we will continue to examine that with our friends and allies in the United Nations and of course with the Israeli government.

    On the first point, the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions, it is precisely to implement those resolutions within the framework of international law that the United States, Great Britain and France have taken the action that they have done recently against Iraq. It was of course Iraq that were infringing Security Council resolutions supported right across the Gulf and indeed right across the United Nations.

    QUESTION:

    On a domestic matter, you have decided to take legal action against two publications in the United Kingdom, this is highly unusual for a serving Prime Minister, can we have your thoughts on it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I issued a statement about that earlier today, l issued a statement concerning that I had instructed solicitors to issue Writs for Libel. I have nothing further to add to that now or later.

    QUESTION:

    On the same matter, when the Chancellor had to consult lawyers about possible libel actions it was decided to pay part of the lawyers’ fees out of public funds, why have you decided not to do that in this case?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Chancellor has dealt with that matter before, I have nothing further to add to that and I have nothing further to add to the announcement I made a moment ago. I have instructed solicitors to issue Writs for Libel, that is all I propose to say about the matter at this stage.

    QUESTION:

    Are you confident that the Middle East countries you are visiting today are behind the UK, the US and France in the action you have been taking against Iraq, does that go for the whole of the Middle East region?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I do think I am content about that, there was very wide support for the Gulf war at the time and for the Security Council resolution subsequently. It is implementing those Security Council resolutions and international law that has actually led to the action to which you refer, so yes I am confident in that.

    QUESTION:

    What is the British government’s policy towards Iraq now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We wish to see Iraq implement the Security Council resolutions, that is our policy, we have no plans for Iraq to dismember Iraq, know there has been concern, we wish to see Iraq remain as an entity but we wish to see it operate under international law and the international community has set out its wishes in a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions, they must be implemented.

    QUESTION:

    Can you expand on the concerns that may have been expressed to you by the Sultan about the position of Iran?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I do not think I wish to expand upon our private conversations on that matter.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that military action should be taken against the Serbs and when will that take place?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we are doing at the moment both in Bosnia in terms of humanitarian assistance and in terms of a political settlement is I think for the time being the way forward. The political settlement that is being sought that was propelled by the London Conference on the Yugoslav crisis that I chaired in the autumn is proceeding and Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance have made very good progress. There is more to be done but I think it is through that political process that we will get a satisfactory settlement to the very sad dispute that exists in Yugoslavia. In the meantime, while the dispute continues we must continue to provide the humanitarian assistance that is necessary and it is for that reason that the United Kingdom have provided not only a large amount of food but other aid as well, most notably medicines and also a large contingent of British troops to ensure that it is delivered where it is most needed.

  • PMQT – 21 January 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

    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. McAllion : Is the Prime Minister aware that the murderous attacks on Iraq, which he supported, have killed at least 45 Iraqis–who were themselves innocent of any violation of international law–have made international lepers of Britain and the United States and have, in the eyes of the democratic opposition in Iraq, served only to strengthen the position of the tyrant Saddam? Does he understand that the crimes that he has committed against innocent Iraqi people may have been undertaken in his name, but were not in my name or in the name, I believe, of the vast majority of the British people?

    The Prime Minister : I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. From the expressions on the faces of most of his right hon. and hon. Friends, neither do they.

    Mr. Faber : Given that yesterday was the inauguration of President Clinton, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United States remain our strongest ally, as indeed we do theirs? Will he take this opportunity to reaffirm that the special relationship is greatly valued by Britain, as President Clinton has already done?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can certainly confirm that to my hon. Friend. There has been a very close relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States for many years. It is a practical relationship, quite apart from the political and military relationship. For example, the United Kingdom is the world’s largest overseas investor in the United States and our exports to the United States last year were some £12 billion. I know that President Clinton will have the good wishes of the entire House and I know that he knows that he can look to this country and this Government as firm friends of the United States.

    Mr. John Smith : In view of the horrendous rise in unemployment announced today–almost 61,000 in one month–when will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his economic policies have failed the nation and are now blighting the lives of millions of British families?

    The Prime Minister : Today’s figures on unemployment are clearly deeply disappointing. They reflect the job losses in the pipeline that were announced last autumn and have now come through. I do not doubt the concern about unemployment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman voices, for I share that concern ; so does everyone on this side of the House. We wish to see unemployment falling and people getting back into secure and lasting jobs. That is my objective, just as much as it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s. But there must be a dual strategy for long-lasting solutions to unemployment. First, there must be solid foundations for economic recovery–low inflation predominantly among them–and secondly, wide-ranging help for the unemployed. That is in place.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister expresses concern for the unemployed, but is he not the same right hon. Gentleman who told us that if it is not hurting it is not working? Is he not the Prime Minister whose first reaction to the announcement of the pit closures was that they had to be closed “cleanly and quickly”, and whose Chancellor believes that unemployment is a “price well worth paying”? How can we believe that his expressions of concern are genuine when we take all those factors into account?

    The Prime Minister : One of the principal causes of unemployment in countries around the world as well as here is the difficulty faced with inflation. It is this Government who have had the courage to stick with policies to get inflation down, and the reality is, despite all his rhetoric neither the right hon. and learned Gentleman nor his hon. Friends have set out a coherent policy for dealing with unemployment. When they produced their phoney budget, they knew that it was a budget that would increase taxes and put up jobs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman still has not responded to the question that he could not answer on Tuesday. How much money would his new tax on windfall profits raise? If he cannot tell us, how can he make the claims for it that he does? Can he guarantee that it will last only a year? No, he cannot. The fact of the matter is that he has no policies other than to complain about the Government, and no idea how to deal with the economy or unemployment.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the nation is tired of feeble and lame excuses? It is also tired of the right hon. Gentleman blaming everyone in the world but himself. When, at long last, will he give the attack on unemployment the priority that the nation demands?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman has to accept economic reality. He should recognise that economic reality requires that you get inflation down and competitiveness up and those are the policies that we are pursuing. He should recognise also the effect of his policies : crushing profits does not create jobs ; tax structures that drive away inward investment do not create jobs ; piling burdens on business does not create jobs ; the social chapter will not create jobs. Those are the policies of the Labour party ; they are policies which would deliberately drive up unemployment and not create the conditions for lasting employment.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth : Further to what my right hon. Friend said, does he agree that one of the best ways of helping British industry would be to cut the red tape bureaucracy and regulation with which it has been overburdened for far too long? Does he agree that a new deregulation drive would help industry to create new jobs?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about the consistent need persistently to bring down the level of regulation and red tape. The more we can rid business of red tape and regulation, the more British business can get on with creating wealth and generating new jobs. As my hon. Friend will have heard last week in the House, I propose to hold a seminar at the beginning of February– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. The Prime Minister must be heard. We cannot– [Interruption.] We cannot make progress– [Interruption.] I like good humour, but there are times when we have to keep quiet and listen. The Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : –at which every Department in Whitehall would come along with regulations that Opposition Members would support and which we propose to remove from business to increase competitiveness.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gapes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Gapes : In the light of today’s report by the Employment Select Committee, will the Prime Minister apologise to the House, to the British people and to the miners for saying on 16 October that it was better to sack 30,000 mine workers “quickly and cleanly” than to institute a full review of the pit closure programme?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the way in which the hon. Gentleman phrases his question tells us a great deal about him. What we are seeking to do is to create a viable coal industry with a fitter future. The hon. Gentleman might recall how many mining jobs were lost under Labour Governments, for there were more lost than there ever have been under Conservative Governments– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Having asked his question, the hon. Gentleman should not bawl and shout from a sedentary position.

     

    Q3. Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Pawsey : Is my right hon. Friend aware that 642 schools have already applied and balloted for grant-maintained status? Does he agree that that is a formidable expression of public and parental opinion? What advice does he give to Opposition Members who persist in their ill- conceived hostility to grant-maintained schools?

    The Prime Minister : In fact, as at the end of last afternoon there were 648–another six have decided to become grant maintained. That is because parents are increasingly seeing the benefit of independence from local authority control. They are voting for grant-maintained schools in increasing numbers and the reason for that is entirely clear. Since opting out they have discovered that they can employ more staff, take on more pupils, enhance special needs provision and provide more books, because they have the freedom to put the money in the classroom where it belongs, and are not subjected to unnecessary control from county hall.

     

    Q4. Mr. David Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Marshall : Does not the Prime Minister realise the catastrophic consequences for unemployment if either Devonport or Rosyth dockyards closes? As well as the folly to the nation of concentrating defence work on one site, does he accept that 18,000 jobs are at risk in Rosyth, and that there is a solution that will keep both dockyards open? Does he agree that that solution is to give Devonport the surface ship work that it does best and to give Rosyth the submarine work that it does best? Will he support that solution? If not, why not?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party, many of whom would abolish nuclear weapons, and nearly all of whom would dramatically reduce defence expenditure. I think that the hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind before he criticises this Government for their defence policies.

     

    Q5. Mr. Mans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Mans : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his Chancellor of the Exchequer has no intention in his Budget of introducing a windfall tax on the privatised utilities, as that would deal a body blow to the 10 million people in this country who have invested in those utilities and would discourage the wider share ownership that we all want in the future ?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly offer that assurance to my hon. Friend. As he rightly says, there are 10 million shareholders, many with very limited shareholdings, with a stake in the utility industries in this country. We understand that it is investment which ultimately creates jobs and that taxation on investment destroys jobs.

     

    Q7. Dr. Berry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Dr. Berry : May I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to early-day motion 330, which calls for the early introduction of a Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Is the Prime Minister aware that this early-day motion has substantial cross-party support–in fact, the greatest volume of support of any early-day motion submitted this Session? Does he accept that disabled people want action–very speedy action–and can he confirm that he will respond positively to the early-day motion?

    The Prime Minister : For a year I was, of course, the Minister of State responsible for disability, and I am well aware of the Government’s excellent record in increasing the benefits for disabled people and providing a much wider range of facilities for them. That is a record unmatched by any other party in the House.

     

    Q8. Mr. French : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. French : Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country’s privatisation programme has been widely applauded and copied in many parts of the world? Can he confirm that, notwithstanding the current criticisms of the British Rail proposals, he will forge ahead with the privatisation programme and will bring forward other candidates, including the Post Office, at an early date?

    The Prime Minister : We propose to proceed not only with the programme of privatisation but with programmes of more contracting out and more market testing. In the current year Government work worth about £1.5 billion will be market tested and, where appropriate, put out to the private sector if that sector can deal with it more efficiently.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 17 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview held in London on Sunday 17th January 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Is this a punishment that fits the crime of Saddam Hussein?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The action that was taken this evening was taken after a great deal of consideration, after a great deal of consultation and after giving Iraq every opportunity to comply with the Security Council resolutions. They were aware that they were breaking them. They were blatantly breaking them and they were aware that they were at risk of a response. And after very careful consultation between the allies there was a response.

    QUESTION:

    Did you counsel caution on President Bush?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, there was complete agreement between the allies about the nature and timing of the response this evening. It has been discussed for two or three days. I have had a number of discussions over the weekend with President Bush and the outcome of those discussions and with President Mitterrand and others was the action taken this evening.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] action if necessary?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to anticipate what may happen now. We have said repeatedly that there are Security Council resolutions that we require Iraq to comply with. They know that. It could not possibly be clearer to them. They have been told time and time and time again. They have now had illustrations that if they will not comply with the Security Council resolutions then there will be a response. I hope they will comply.

    QUESTION:

    Do you regret the civilian casualties?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We do not yet know any details about that. The military advice I have is that it is very unlikely, that those casualties, if you mean the Rashid Hotel, that the casualties were caused by the action of the United States. We do not know that. There was a great deal of random and haphazard fire from within Baghdad and it may well be that that was self inflicted but at this moment we do not know.

    QUESTION:

    What about British military involvement, do you expect any of that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to anticipate what may happen in the future. On this occasion it was considered operationally the right way to deal with the problem was to use the Tomahawk cruise missiles and that was what happened.

    QUESTION:

    What about those who say that this was reckless and will escalate problems in the Gulf?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I disagree with them. The problems, originally the invasion of Kuwait came from Iraq. The disobedience of the Security Council resolutions is by Iraq. It is not just the occasional disobedience, it’s wilfully disobeying the requirements of the international community time and time again. He has been courting trouble, he has had trouble. He knew what was likely to happen. It has happened.

    QUESTION:

    Will you be making a statement Prime Minister to the House of Commons tomorrow?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Defence Secretary will make a statement tomorrow afternoon.

  • PMQT – 14 January 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

    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. Wareing : Does the Prime Minister agree that although the action against Saddam Hussein was thoroughly justified, similar military action in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina could not be so justified? Will he give a categorical assurance that no British service man’s life will be put at risk by fighting on one side or the other of that conflict, because such a conflict would lead to a general conflagration in the area? Should not the message from the House now be : remember Sarajevo, 1914?

    The Prime Minister : The situation in Bosnia presents special difficulties and is quite different, as the hon. Gentleman said. He will know the action that we have taken : we have imposed an arms embargo, sanctions and a no-fly zone which has been made effective. Progress has been made in the peace talks in Geneva–not enough, but progress has been made–and we will take further measures if we have to. As the hon. Gentleman may know, European Community Foreign Ministers agreed yesterday to work on measures leading to Serbia’s total diplomatic isolation. The European Community also agreed on the need for an international criminal court and will support that at the United Nations.

     

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

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

    Mr. Pickles : In his busy schedule today, does my right hon. Friend have any plans to commemorate the centenary of the foundation of the Independent Labour party? If so, what advice does he offer as the most appropriate way to mark this event?

    The Prime Minister : I did not have it in mind to do so, but perhaps we might hold a wake.

    Mr. John Smith : To return to the Prime Minister’s actual responsibilities, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is right that taxpayers’ money should be used to pay the legal fees incurred by a Minister in connection with his own private affairs?

    The Prime Minister : It is uncharacteristic of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deal in innuendo. The matter to which he refers has been dealt with by Sir John Bourn, an independent report has been commissioned and the answer is quite clear : no impropriety occurred.

    Mr. Smith : Does not the Prime Minister even understand the distinction between a public duty and a private concern? In this case, is not it clear that the Chancellor instructed solicitors because of his decision to rent his own property to a tenant for his own profit? Is not it clear from the report to which the Prime Minister refers that the Chancellor instructed solicitors without referring the matter to a Government legal adviser? If property was involved, should not the Chancellor be asked to repay the money now?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman may wish to reflect on and withdraw those remarks. It is uncharacteristically cheap of him to have raised the matter in this fashion. The report fully exonerates the Treasury on the central questions : was it right to make the payment and were any rules breached? Sir John Bourn, who carried out the inquiry, has no criticism on either point. He also confirms that the Chancellor did not ask for assistance and makes no criticism of my right hon. Friend’s actions.

    Mr. Smith : Does the Prime Minister understand that it is a matter not of innuendo but of public policy on whether taxpayers’ money should be used to finance the private legal affairs of a Minister? If the Prime Minister is resting on the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which has not yet been considered by the Public Accounts Committee, will he explain why, as is clear from the report, the whole matter was concealed under a heading called

    “Expenditure on economic, financial and related administration”, which included the expenses of pay review bodies and the cost of the BCCI inquiry? Was not there an attempt to hide this matter from the public and from scrutiny here?

    The Prime Minister rose —

    Hon. Members : Answer!

    Madam Speaker : Order. It is pointless the House shouting “answer” ; the Prime Minister is at the Dispatch Box doing just that.

    The Prime Minister : It says a great deal about the Leader of the Opposition that, the day after our service men have been in action in Iraq and when we have troops in Bosnia, he has raised this matter in the House. I repeat, as he sits smiling smugly, that the Chancellor did not receive assistance. The Treasury broke no accounting rules and in the absence of the rules it was appropriate that judgment should be exercised by two accounting officers. That has been independently examined. There is no criticism of that judgment and if he had a shred of self-respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw those remarks.

    Mr. Butterfill : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Aim Aviation of Bournemouth, which has been so successful in winning export orders in the United States, the far east and Europe that it has had to acquire a new factory at Wallisdown in my constituency? Will he join me in wishing it every success in seeking new orders, which it undoubtedly will be able to do under the policies of the Government?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to do that and I am delighted to hear of this export success. There is no doubt that our exports have been on a rising trend. Equally, there is no doubt that we have the right economic fundamentals to encourage exporting in the future.

    Mr. Boyce : What a load of nonsense.

    The Prime Minister : It is vital that we do so for our jobs and prosperity. We understand that, even if the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce) understands nothing.

     

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

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

    Mr. Livingstone : Does the Prime Minister accept that the vigour with which the Government have ensured that Iraq complies with the United Nations resolutions is not repeated when ensuring that other nations such as India comply with United Nations resolutions on Kashmir or China with United Nations resolutions on Tibet? Is he aware that, to many people in the world, it seems that we pursue United Nations resolutions with vigour only when they refer to endangered western oil interests?

    The Prime Minister : I think the hon. Gentleman knows better than that. This country has a better record of supporting United Nations resolutions than almost any country that he can name.

    In the case of the difficulties with Iraq, there was a clear violation and invasion of a neighbouring country and an attempt to capture both that neighbouring country and probably to move on further down the Gulf. Recently there have been deliberate attempts of genocide both in the north and south of Iraq. The whole of the hon. Gentleman’s background suggests that he should be supporting the Government in preventing that genocide.

    Mr. Bill Walker : My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Cabinet will shortly be looking at proposals for the future of the naval dockyards. He will be aware of the political sensitivity that applies to both naval dockyards. Will he assure me and the House that the decision, when made, will be based upon equal opportunities for both dockyards and that we will be comparing apples with apples so that there is no question of saying afterwards that the decision was arrived at other than properly and honourably?

    The Prime Minister : I can assure my hon. Friend that every relevant factor will be taken into account.

     

    Q4. Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Jones : Will the Prime Minister find time today to pass on the condolences of everyone in the House to the family and friends of my constituent, Lance Corporal Edwards, who was killed yesterday bravely delivering aid to Bosnia? Will the Prime Minister tell the House what measures he will be taking to ensure that the troops performing this dangerous role have the firepower and intelligence back-up to prevent further casualties?

    The Prime Minister : The whole House will agree with what the hon. Gentleman had to say about his constituent. He was a very brave man and there is no doubt that he gave his life to save the lives of many other people who would have died, but for actions of Lance Corporal Edwards and those of his colleagues.

    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be making a statement after questions which will be directly germane to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

     

    Q5. Mr. David Martin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Martin : Is my right hon. Friend aware that since he visited St. Mary’s hospital in Portsmouth, it, with Queen Alexandra’s, has been approved for trust status? Remembering all the virulent criticisms levelled at trust hospitals by the Opposition parties, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has seen the reports in today’s papers that even the official Front-Bench spokesman of the Labour party now sees the sense in our reforms? Is there joy in Downing street over one sinner that repenteth?

    The Prime Minister : There is hardly likely to be joy over that particular sinner. But I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that I have seen the report. The fact is that the Labour party has no agenda of its own. Conservatism has won the arguments on health and will continue to win them. I well remember what the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said :

    “I give this historic pledge that the hospital that serves my constituents will opt out over my dead body.”

    I hope that the hon. Member does not live to regret that pledge. No doubt if he is ill his local trust hospital will treat him.

    Mr. Wigley : Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the representations that have been made over a number of months by disablement organisations about the need for anti-discrimination legislation? As he once had ministerial responsibility for disabled people and bearing in mind the fact that a Bill has passed through the House of Lords, will the Prime Minister find time for such legislation to go on the statute book in this parliamentary year?

    The Prime Minister : This is a technical and difficult matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House, but I will look at the points he raised and discuss them with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

     

    Worcester

    Q6. Mr. Luff : To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to pay an official visit to Worcester.

    The Prime Minister : I am at present making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and I hope to include Worcester among them.

    Mr. Luff : Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he were to visit Worcester, he would encounter very great admiration for the skills and bravery of our armed forces, both in Bosnia and the Gulf? Is he also aware that he would encounter great local anger at the inability of the Labour- controlled local council to live within its means and at its failed gamble that it would be bailed out by an incoming Labour Government, as a result of which it is resorting to desperate measures to balance the books, including the sale of much-loved public open spaces?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that a number of people may well have gambled on a Labour victory at the last election. I am bound to say that it was always likely to be a poor bet. I quite understand the way my hon. Friend feels about the Labour council in Worcester–many people around the country feel the same about other Labour councils. It is the charge payers of Worcester who will have to pick up the bill for the Labour council’s actions and I hope that they will remember that when the local council elections come along.

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Vaz : The Prime Minister may recall that on 14 March 1991 I met him to discuss the case of my constituent, John Hall, who was dying of leukaemia, an illness which he contracted while serving on Christmas island. He also knows that John Hall subsequently died on 3 June last year in the royal infirmary in Leicester. The House rightly honours those who serve this country. Will the Prime Minister join me and others in honouring the memory and selfless devotion of the British nuclear test veterans and pay them and their families the compensation which they so richly deserve?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in honouring all our veterans, whether those veterans or others. He will know that the question of compensation and whether it is due for the reasons he set out is being examined at this moment.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on Iraq – 13 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on Iraq, made at Downing Street in London on Wednesday 13th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As you know, Royal Air Force Tornadoes and tankers have today taken part in a limited Coalition attack on surface-to-air missiles and their associated command and control facilities in southern Iraq. There have been no Allied casualties. All our aircraft have returned safely to base and preliminary information – and I emphasise that, preliminary information – indicates that the aircraft accomplished their mission satisfactorily.

    Let me say that we did not take this action lightly. Last year, we established a no-fly zone over southern Iraq and the purpose of that was quite clear – it was to stop Saddam Hussein from the repression of his own people. Over the last few weeks, our aircraft in that no-fly zone have come under increasing threat, threat from Iraqi aircraft themselves entering the no-fly zone and from missile batteries installed in Southern Iraq.

    Over recent days, the Iraqis have been ample warning. The action that we have taken tonight has deliberately been both limited and proportionate but we believe it will be effective in establishing the conditions which will enable our aircraft to operate in the no-fly zone with safety.

    The Iraqi regime are in breach of Security Council requirements on a number of fronts. They pose a threat to aircraft protecting the Kurds in Northern Iraq, they are impeding the actions of the UN inspection teams, they are illegally entering Kuwaiti territory. Each and every one of those breaches needs to stop. If they don’t, we shall have no hesitation – again with our Allies – in taking the necessary action to enforce Security Council Resolutions.

    The Secretary of State for Defence will be making a statement to the House at 10 o’clock.

    I will take one or two questions.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, have you spoken to President Bush about your next action?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I shall be speaking to President Bush again within a few minutes.

    QUESTION:

    Do you have any idea of the level of Iraqi casualties that might have come from such missions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not at this stage.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITV):

    How long can this cat-and-mouse game with Saddam go on? People are saying he should be taken out once and for all.

    PRIME MINISTER:
    I think he has had a very clear indication today of the fact that people are growing increasingly intolerant of his defiance of the Security Council Resolutions. I hope that he will learn from the lesson.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC TV):

    Do you expect this action to put an end to violations by Saddam Hussein and are the Allies prepared to step up action if he continues to defy UN Resolutions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are prepared to make sure that the Security Council Resolutions are enforced. I hope this will put an end to the infringements. We have hoped that before and it has not. If he infringes again, he must expect us to retaliate again and we have made it entirely clear to him that we will certainly do that.

    QUESTION:

    Do you regret not dealing with Saddam Hussein tougher two years ago?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I think the decision that was taken to stop the fighting at the time we did was the right decision at the time. One has to recall we were operating under a UN mandate; that mandate had been enforced; we had no legal authority to do more and I believe it was right to stop when we did.

    QUESTION:

    Are you prepared to take the same tough action against the Serbs since many Muslims may feel that Christians in Europe are applying double standards?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think people know the action that we have already taken in humanitarian aid in Bosnia and we have a substantial number of troops on the ground and you will know the very sad news indeed that one of them was killed this morning.

    Thank you very much indeed.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 November 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Alan Williams : To ask the Prime Minister if briefing material for the Ministry’s folder for Question Time while he was (a) Chief Secretary to the Treasury, (b) Foreign Secretary, (c) Chancellor of the Exchequer and (d) Prime Minister still exists; and if he will make it available to the Scott committee of inquiry.

    The Prime Minister : The briefing material prepared for my use at Question Time while I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer and since I have been Prime Minister is still in existence. Not all the briefing material prepared for me for Question Time while I was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has been retained, although that which relates to Iraq still exists. Material which is asked for by Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry will be made available to him.

    Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister how the Iraqi defence procurement network’s activities in relation to United Kingdom-based companies were monitored by the Government in the period (a) 1985 to December 1988 and (b) since December 1988.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 24 November 1992] : It is not the Government’s practice to comment on intelligence matters.

     

    Devaluation

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of (a) the degree to which the sterling price of imports has been maintained and (b) the change in demand for imported manufactures, following the fall in the value of sterling.

    The Prime Minister : It is not possible to separate the impact of the recent fall in the value of sterling from other factors influencing the sterling price of United Kingdom imports. Nevertheless, improved competitiveness is expected to restrain the growth of manufactured import volumes in 1993.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the benefits of devaluation to the financing needs of the coal industry.

    The Prime Minister : The new external financing limits for British Coal announced last week, which are provisional pending decisions on the coal review, already take account of recent changes in exchange rates.

     

    Pit Closures

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what account he took in agreeing to the pit closures of the expenditure implications as regarding unemployment benefit; if he will publish a table showing for each mine in the current year and for each of the next five years (a) the estimated direct and indirect costs to the Exchequer of those made unemployed, (b) the estimated operational loss at each mine in 1991 and in the current year to date and (c) the estimated loss in 1993 of disposing of surplus production on the international market at the world price.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 23 October 1992] : I had regard to the likelihood that, in the light of market assessments, continuing to mine coal for which there was no economic market would involve a substantial ongoing cost to public expenditure and that we were proposing a wide range of measures to help those made redundant secure new jobs and to enhance job prospects in the areas affected. I have asked the chairman of British Coal to write to the hon. Member about the information at (b). On (c), this too would be an operational matter for British Coal but even in the event that a suitable contractual arrangement could be established on commercial grounds there would also be the matter of compliance with the United Kingdom’s GATT and other international trade obligations.

     

    Public Interest Immunity Certificates

    Mr. Oppenheim : To ask the Prime Minister how many public interest immunity certificates were signed by Ministers (a) from 1974 to 1979 and (b) since 1979.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 24 November 1992] : Public interest immunity certificates were signed by Ministers periodically throughout the period in question, but no central record is held of the number involved.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 November 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Libya

    Mr. John Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on what Libya has done to comply with Security Council resolutions 731 and 748 and Her Majesty’s Government’s policy to bring Libya to compliance.

    The Prime Minister : It is our policy that Libya should implement in full the two SCRs to which the hon. Member has referred. Neither we nor the other co- sponsors of the resolution in question, France, and the United States, will be satisfied with less. Unfortunately, I cannot report more than limited success at this stage.

    During the summer the Libyan authorities closed, and in some cases dismantled, many of the camps previously used to house or train terrorists. They have also given us information on their links with the Provisional Irish Republican Army which we believe may prove useful. We welcome both these developments as steps towards demonstrating that Libya has renounced terrorism called for in SCR 731 and 748.

    But the Libyans must take further steps in order to comply fully with those resolutions. In particular, it is necessary for them to surrender for trial in Scotland or the United States the two accused of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and for them to satisfy the French demands for co-operation on the investigation into the UTA bombing. Libya can be sure that a trial in Scotland will be fair, and in accordance with normal Scottish procedures, including trial by jury. If the Libyans convince us that they have decided to surrender the two suspects, then we would be willing to meet them to discuss the mechanics of handing them over.

    We have no hidden agenda, and we are not seeking to use this issue to undermine the regime in Libya. But it is now a year since the warrants for the two accused of Lockerbie were issued. There can be no question of any relaxation of United Nations sanctions, complete or in part, until Libya has surrendered the two accused of Lockerbie and satisfied French requirements on UTA. If they do, this situation will be transformed. If they do not, the consequences for Libya are bound to be increasingly serious.

     

    Iraq (Exports)

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the letter, reference 000399, dated 20 June 1990, from the principal private secretary to the noble Lord, Lord Ridley, then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to the private secretary to the chairman of Customs and Excise, under the heading “Exports to Iraq” which was copied to him as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the previous letter, reference 000395, copies of which have been sent to him.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 November 1992] : The first document to which the hon. Member refers relates to consultations between Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise and the Department of Trade and Industry prior to a fact-finding visit by Customs officers to the premises of Matrix Churchill. A reply from Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise to the Department of Trade and Industry dated 22 June 1990 made it clear that decisions about any follow-up action would rest with the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise in accordance with their statutory responsibilities. These documents were copied to my Private Secretary in the Treasury. Treasury records do not reveal whether I saw this correspondence, but I have no recollection of having done so. The then Paymaster General was responsible in the first instance for matters involving Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise.

    The second document is an internal submission dated 14 June 1990 to the right hon. Lord Ridley, then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, concerning the implications of the visit by customs officers to Matrix Churchill. It was not copied to other Ministers. It will be for Lord Justice Scott to consider the relevance of this document to the implementation of Government policy on the export of defence equipment to Iraq.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 18 November 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Britain in Europe

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister what are his reasons for omitting from the booklet “Britain in Europe” a reference to the provisions contained in article K.3 of the treaty on European Union on qualified majority voting on certain decisions relating to foreign policy on security.

    The Prime Minister : Article J.3 provides for the use of qualified majority voting for certain implementing decisions in areas of the common foreign and security policy subject to joint action. Majority voting would, however, apply only where member states have explicitly and unanimously so decided. It is not possible to cover all the provisions of the treaty in a 24-page booklet.

     

    British-German Meeting

    Mr. George Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister what were the costs to the Exchequer of the bilateral British-German meeting at Ditchley park on Wednesday 11 November.

    The Prime Minister : The estimated cost to the Exchequer is £57,000.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty’s Government were informed that Iraq’s military capabilities were potentially directed against a country or countries other than Iran.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 November 1992] : Prior to the invasion of Kuwait, the assessment made by the United Kingdom, and other countries, including Iraq’s neighbours was that Iraq would use her military strength to bolster her position as a dominant power in the region, but that she would not risk world hostility by aggressive action. That assessment changed when Iraq started to make threats against Kuwait, but it was still thought that Iraq would use the threats to extract concessions from Kuwait, not launch an invasion.

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the current list of special advisers attached to Ministers stating the Minister they work for and their previous occupations.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 November 1992] : There are currently 37 special advisers attached to Ministers. The names of the advisers, the Ministers they work for and their previous occupations before the last general election are as follows :

    Name |Minister(s) served |Previous Occupation

    —————————————————————————————————————–

    1. Adams |Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food |Special Adviser
    2. Bickham |Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs |Special Adviser

    Sir R. Braithwaite |Prime Minister |British Ambassador, Moscow

    1. Burke |Secretary of State for the Environment |Special Adviser
    2. Caine |Secretary of State for Northern Ireland |Special Adviser
    3. Cameron |Financial Secretary to the Treasury |Conservative Central Office

    Dr. E. Cottrell |Secretary of State for Employment |Conservative Central Office

    Sir C. Foster |Secretary of State for Transport |Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte

    1. Fraser |Minister of State for Overseas Development |Special Adviser
    2. Grantham |Secretary of State for Education |Special Adviser
    3. Gray |Jointly to the Ministers for Local Government and Inner Cities; Environment and Countryside and House and Planning |GNI Ltd.
    4. Green |Prime Minister |Journalist

    Professor P. Hall |Secretary of State for the Environment |Special Adviser

    Ms. S. Hole |Chief Whip |Special Adviser

    Mrs. S. Hogg |Prime Minister |Special Adviser

    1. Kemp |President of the Board of Trade |Special Adviser

    Mrs. T. Keswick |Home Secretary |Special Adviser

    Mrs. E. Laing |Secretary of State for Transport |Special Adviser

    1. Mackay |Secretary of State for Scotland |Special Adviser
    2. Marsh |Secretary of State for Health |Special Adviser
    3. Mayhew |Secretary of State for Social Security |Special Adviser

    Miss S. McEwen |Chief Whip (House of Lords) |Special Adviser

    1. McManus |Secretary of State for Wales |Conservative Central Office
    2. Miller |Secretary of State for Defence |Special Adviser

    Dr. J. Nicholson |Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster |John Nicholson Associates

    Sir I. Pearce |Secretary of State for Transport |Richard Ellis and English Estates

    1. Poole |Prime Minister |James Capel

    Mrs. K. Ramsey |Prime Minister |Special Adviser

    Dr. W. Robinson |Chancellor of the Exchequer |Special Adviser

    1. Rock |Secretary of State for the Environment |Conservative Central Office
    2. Rosling |Prime Minister |Special Adviser
    3. Ruffley |Jointly to the three Ministers of State and the Under Secretary of State in the Home Office |Special Adviser
    4. Stewart |Lord President |Special Adviser

    Lady Strathnaver |President of the Board of Trade |Special Adviser

    1. True |Prime Minister |Special Adviser
    2. Wilton |Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster |Special Adviser
    3. Young |Secretary of State for Scotland |Special Adviser

     

    Matrix Churchill

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for the papers supplied to defence counsel in the Matrix Churchill case to be placed in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 November 1992] : No. The papers were supplied to the defence for the purposes of the trial. Lord Justice Scott will have access to them.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 November 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Private Detectives

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister what use his Department has made of private detectives in each of the last five years; at what cost; and if he will list the firms involved.

    The Prime Minister : My Office has not made use of private detectives.

     

    President Yeltsin

    Mr. David Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent visit of President Yeltsin of Russia.

    The Prime Minister : President Yeltsin paid a highly successful visit on 9 and 10 November, the first official visit to the United Kingdom by a President of Russia. During his visit he addressed Members of both Houses in the Royal Gallery, attended a luncheon given by Her Majesty the Queen and met businessmen at the London Stock Exchange. I hosted a dinner for the President in the painted hall of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich.

    President Yeltsin and I signed a treaty on the principles of relations between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation and five other agreements and memoranda of understanding were signed by representatives of the two Governments during the visit. In discussions with the President, I welcomed the new and friendly relations between the United Kingdom and Russia and underlined the Government’s support for the process of economic and political reform in Russia.

     

    Classless Society

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made towards the creation of a classless society in Britain.

    The Prime Minister : The Government’s policies are aimed, and will continue to be aimed, at widening choice and opportunity for all members of society. Most recently, progress has been made through the introduction in the 1992 Budget, of a new lower rate band which reduced the marginal rate to 20 per cent. for almost 4 million people on low incomes, including over 1 million working wives; through our recent reforms in education and health; and through other public service initiatives, including the introduction of the citizens charter.

     

    Environment

    Mr. David Porter : To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made on implementing the involvement of young people in environmental awareness following the decisions agreed at the 1992 Earth summit; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Many of the recommendations relating to young people in Agenda 21 have already been implemented in the United Kingdom; for example, the requirements of a number of subjects in the national curriculum include studies relevant to the environment. We are also supporting informal environmental education initiatives through the Department of the Environment’s grant schemes. Chapter 17 of the Second Year Report (Cm 2068) on the anniversary of the “Environment” White Paper explains our action in detail.

     

    Office Telephone Lines

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 November, Official Report, column 672, regarding facilities for the public to telephone his Office, if he will give details of the existing practice.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member on 10 November at column 672.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on 10 November, Official Report, columns 737-38, what was the start date for the application of the full embargo on the supply of arms to Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : The full embargo came into force at midnight on 8 August 1990 in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolution 661.

    All relevant issues will be covered by Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry whose terms of reference will be :

    “Having examined the facts in relation to the export from the United Kingdom of defence equipment and dual use goods to Iraq between December 1984 and August 1990 and the decisions reached on the export licence applications for such goods and the basis for them, to report on whether the relevant Departments, Agencies, and responsible Ministers operated in accordance with the policies of Her Majesty’s Government; to examine and report on decisions taken by the prosecuting authority and by those signing public interest immunity certificates in R v Henderson and any other similar cases that he considers relevant to the issues of the inquiry; and to make recommendations”.

    The terms of reference have not been restricted to Matrix Churchill. They include the supergun and other defence and dual-use sales.

    The terms of reference relate not just to arms questions but to decisions taken on the prosecution of companies and on public interest immunity.

    All Ministers who are called will give evidence.

    All civil servants who are called will be instructed to co-operate.

    All papers that the inquiry calls for will be made available. Lord Justice Scott will be entirely free to decide on the publication of his report and of the evidence he takes.

    If Lord Justice Scott finds that his powers are in any way insufficient, he can invite the Government to alter the basis of his inquiry and the Government would agree to do so.

    The inquiry will report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

     

    Cabinet Committees

    Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister whether the rules of collective responsibility for decisions made in a Cabinet Committee are applied only to those attending the meeting.

    The Prime Minister : Decisions reached by the Cabinet or Ministerial Committees are binding on all members of the Government.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Iraq (II) – 18 August 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Iraq made during an interview held on Tuesday 18th August 1992.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what the current position was in Iraq].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we’ve said to the Iraqi authorities is that we’re now perfectly clear that they’re engaged in systematic repression of the Shias in the south of Iraq and that isn’t acceptable and that has got to stop.

    What we propose to do therefore is to monitor the whole area from the air, and whilst we’re doing that, to ensure the security of both the Shias and of the aircraft, we will instruct the Iraqi’s not to fly in that area.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what would happen if the Iraqis did fly in the banned area].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If they do, they’ll be perfectly well aware that they’re likely to be attacked.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if they would be attacked].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They will be attacked if they fly in the area that is proscribed, yes.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what would troops do if the Iraqis fought back].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have seen in the past that they would lose, but I hope that that won’t be the case. I hope they will accept the fact that the coalition, especially the Americans, the French and the British would be there in force monitoring what happens from the air and I hope and believe that they will accept the edict that will be laid before them and not fly in that area.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the troubles could now just escalate].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you have to realise why we’re doing it, we’re not doing it for no good reason. It’s happened because there is clear evidence now of the systematic murder and genocide of the Shias. Bombing by Saddam from the air on the Shias, reports not yet confirmed, but fairly good reports of napalm being used and this has been going on for some time. Increasing evidence of this is coming to light and it’s no longer tolerable.