The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: NATO

  • Text of the NATO Agreement – Developments in the Soviet Union – 8 November 1991

    Below is the text of the NATO Agreement on Developments in the Soviet Union, issued on 8th November 1991.

    DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SOVIET UNION

    1 – We, the Heads of State and Government of the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, warmly welcome the historic events that are fundamentally transforming the Soviet Union as we have known it and the relationships among the republics. By their resolute and courageous stand against the illegal coup of 19th August, the men and women of the Soviet union have affirmed their determination to build a new future based upon democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and economic liberty. The nations of the Atlantic Alliance pledge themselves to assist in this great endeavour. We are prepared to build our relationships with the Soviet Union and the republics on the basis of the following fundamental principles that have guided our own policies and practices for decades.

    2 – It is for the peoples of the Soviet Union to decide their future relationship through peaceful and democratic means. At the same time, we encourage them to progress towards a common ground of cooperation, both among themselves and with us. In this process, there is no place for threats, intimidation, coercion or violence. Authorities at all levels should respect international norms and international obligations, especially those embodied in the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, and other CSCE documents. Consistent with these commitments, government must be based on democracy through free and fair elections, and on the rule of law. Inalienable human rights must be guaranteed, including full respect for the individual and protection of the rights of persons belonging to minorities.

    3 – In a period of dramatic political change, it is important also to the development of our relations that leaders of the Soviet Union and the republics implement policies that contribute to international peace and security. in this respect, it is critical that the Soviet Union and the republics take all necessary actions to ensure that international agreements signed by the USSR, especially the START Treaty, the CFE Treaty, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Biological Weapons Convention are respected, ratified, and implemented. We call upon all authorities to refrain from any steps that could lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons or other means of mass destruction. We therefore welcome the intention of the Soviet leadership to ensure the safe, responsible and reliable control of these weapons under a single authority. This matter affects the security interests of the entire Atlantic Alliance, as well as those of the international community as a whole. The Soviet and republic governments should adopt firm measures to prevent the export of nuclear or other potentially destabilising military technologies. We urge restraint in the development of conventional military forces that by their size and character could exacerbate political tensions, retard market economic reform, and contradict efforts toward lower and more stable levels of forces as embodied in the CFE Treaty. Because it reduces the dangers of instability and enhances openness, the CFE Treaty is in everyone’s interest, including those of the Soviet union and the republics.

    4 – The Allies are firmly convinced that political change should be accompanied by economic liberty and the building of market economies. We support the development of economic policies that promote trade and economic cooperation among republics in the interest of growth and stability. In this context, it is essential that all the republics assume their appropriate responsibilities vis-à-vis Soviet international obligations, which would facilitate integration of the Union and the republics. into the world economy. Newly established links with the international financial institutions should facilitate rapid reform towards the development of a market economy as the basis for economic recovery and prosperity for the Union and the republics. The Allies stand ready to assist in this historic undertaking, including through technical assistance in key sectors. In addition, we are providing humanitarian support to the Soviet peoples as they cope with the political and economic crises that confront them. We consider such assistance a vital contribution to the future security of Europe and of the world as a whole.

    5 – We hope that leaders and authorities at all levels throughout the Union and the republics will demonstrate their commitment to the values and principles we have reaffirmed in this statement.

    6 – The North Atlantic Council will continue to consult actively on developments in the Soviet Union, with a view to harmonising our approach towards unfolding events.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Rome – 8 November 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s press conference, held in Rome on Friday 8th November 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think in the last couple of days we have seen a very successful conference indeed, we have seen one that has successfully completed the work that was set in hand in London just over a year ago and there are a number of points to which I would particularly like to draw your attention.

    We have agreed the reorganisation of our forces which will now be more flexible and more mobile. And there has been complete agreement amongst the allies that we will need to maintain effective nuclear as well as conventional forces, but of course at lower levels than previously. For example, our theatre nuclear weapons will be cut by around 80 percent.

    We have also been able to endorse the role of the Alliance’s new reaction forces and again I suspect you were aware that Britain will command the new rapid reaction corps.

    We have also reaffirmed NATO’s position as the essential forum for consultation among the allies and the forum for agreement on policy bearing on the security and defence commitments of all its members, and we regard that as very important.

    The Alliance has always been an organisation designed to defend the peace but its role is changing, Now we are increasingly seeing an Alliance that is promoting the peace as well. As you will have seen from the declaration, we have agreed to set up a North Atlantic Cooperation Council to conduct a continuing dialogue with the countries of Eastern Europe and at Britain’s suggestion its first meeting will be at Foreign Minister level in December and I think it has now been agreed that that will be in Brussels.

    That is a remarkable achievement. Two years ago many of the countries of Eastern Europe were calling for both the Warsaw Pact and for NATO to be dismantled. The Warsaw Pact has now disappeared but the countries of Eastern Europe have come to see the valuable role NATO can play in seeking to underpin their democracy.

    But I think the important point is this. We are not just talking to each other, it will go a good deal further than that. We shall be offering education and training, advice on the conversion of defence industries and encouragement to Eastern European countries to join with us in the West in halting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

    We have also had an interesting discussion of events in the Soviet Union. l think it is self-evident to everyone in this room that the Soviet Union is changing very rapidly and very unpredictably as well. The problem of food shortages this winter is one we are well aware of. We discussed that collectively and I discussed it bilaterally with President Bush yesterday as well. I have also been in touch with the President of the European Commission over the last two days.

    Within the G7 countries we have been coordinating an international effort to provide food aid, effectively targeted to the areas that we believe will most need it. There is an urgent need to get food aid on its way. Within the European Community we have already agreed aid worth nearly 2.5 billion dollars. But the problems of the Soviet Union of, course go a good deal wider than simply food aid and we have to try and help them to achieve democracy with stability, that is we believe what they are seeking for themselves and to the extent that we can help with that we believe that we should.

    Economically, our ability to help the republics of the Soviet Union must depend on their willingness to shoulder their share of the burden of Soviet debt and politically we must encourage them to ratify and apply the main arms control treaties agreed by the former Soviet Union.

    The Soviet Union must also stop wasting its scarce resources on vast military programmes inherited from the past and far beyond its present needs. It makes no sense economically and would be very dangerous politically for the republics to seek to build up their own forces. These issues will be one of our central preoccupations over the immediate months ahead.

    The Alliance’s new strategic concept and the declaration reflect the view expressed by all of us that Europe should be doing more for its own defence and both the texts also reflect agreement that we should not be talking about transatlantic defence and European defence as though they were alternatives. Defence activities within the framework of political union will to doubt develop over time but it must be compatible with what we are doing in NATO.

    And there are three important principles in the declaration and in the strategic concept to which I would particularly draw your attention. Firstly, NATO should remain the forum for decisions on matters involving the defence of the Alliance. Secondly, as we create new European capabilities there should be no duplication of NATO’s military structures for the defence of western Europe, that is what is meant by the reference to operational coherence and strategic unity in the documents published today. And thirdly, the Western European Union should be reinforced as a means of strengthening the European pillar of the Alliance and we should make sure that all allies are properly involved in decisions that may involve their security.

    That reflects our view that the Western European Union, although politically very close to the Union and its foreign and security policy, should remain autonomous, subordinate neither to the union nor to NATO.

    The Foreign Ministers also met this morning to discuss Yugoslavia and on that occasion they heard a fairly sombre report from Lord Carrington. On the political front the Serbians remain unwilling to make good use of Lord Carrington’s peace conference and the proposals that we have made. On the military front there is now new and serious fighting, this time in Zagreb itself.

    Our judgment is that the outside world must now find new ways of bringing the leaders and the forces to their senses. For that reason the European Community has decided today to dismantle its links with Yugoslavia. We shall in particular suspend the trade and cooperation agreement which will have a serious effect on Yugoslav exports to the Community. And these are new measures, not old measures revisited.

    The three Community members of the Security Council have agreed they will press at the United Nations for an oil embargo, it would bear more heavily on the Serbs and the Yugoslav National Army, the largely Serbian Yugoslav Army. We shall also look for positive measures to alleviate the effect of sanctions on those parties which cooperate with, the peace efforts.

    Lord Carrington in the future will of course continue his efforts, but the peace conference needs clear signs that all the parties to the peace conference are ready to work seriously for peace if that conference is to proceed.

    That was the substance of the agreement amongst the Foreign Ministers this morning and that was endorsed subsequently by the Heads of Government.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Nik Gowing, Channel 4 News):

    Prime Minister, what kind of benchmark on defence issues has been created by the text reference to the WEU in advance of your discussions before Maastricht?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There was complete agreement about the essential primacy of NATO at the discussions, that we have had over the last 2 days, there was no dissent on that point from anyone at all, neither was there any suggestions from any part of the conference that there should be any other command structure or operational structure other than that which exists through the Western European Union and through NATO. There is a general agreement that the Western European Union should be built up as the European arm of NATO, that is entirely acceptable. That is what was agreed and nothing further was agreed, there was no suggestion of subordination of the Western European Union to the European Community.

    QUESTION (Jim Hoglan, Washington Post):

    You have just said that there is an urgent need to get food aid on its way to the Soviet Union, can you tell us whether the delay in doing that, the remaining obstacle in doing that, has to do with the inability of the Western powers to organise that aid or the problems of knowing who to give it to in the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The primary concern is knowing precisely where the food aid is going to have to go and determining how to get it there. The Community has agreed something over 2.25 billion pounds worth of food aid, there has been an offer from other sources as well. There is a need to coordinate that, it would be rather silly of the Western powers collectively to deliver the wrong sort of aid at the wrong time to the wrong place in the Soviet Union. So there is a need for a good deal of coordination and that coordination is at present in hand, how rapidly it will be concluded I cannot say, but I would certainly hope that we would be able to make those facilities available to the Soviets well before Christmas.

    QUESTION (Graham Leech, BBC):

    Following Nik Gowing’s question, the declaration does refer to the reinforcement of the role of the WEU as the defence component which would suggest a leaning towards the Franco-German ideas rather than the Anglo-Italian ideas?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With respect, I think it suggests precisely the opposite. The idea of building up the Western European Union is one that arouses no difficulty amongst any of the European partners in the Alliance, there is agreement that it is right for Europe to bear a proportionately larger share of the transatlantic NATO burden – that is generally agreed.

    The point at issue really is what the nature of the Western European Union subsequently will be and what its links will be both with NATO and with the European Community. There has been no suggestion in the discussions that we have had over the past two days, and nothing in the declarations, to suggest that the independence of the European Community and of NATO should change insofar as the western European Union is concerned and we believe on the basis of that that it is a helpful text.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It means that Europe is going to build up its own share of the Alliance through the Western European Union, but the Western European Union remains wholly a part of NATO and will be operational within NATO.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    If there is general agreement on the primacy of NATO why didn’t the Alliance take the opportunity to affirm it in so many words and what prospect do you see for NATO operating as an out of area military policeman?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no question that NATO is the prime method of our defence, it is a matter which is accepted without any need for it actually to be stated. I think one exchange during the meeting is perhaps more illustrative than the text. President Bush said at one stage during the meeting: “if it is actually the wish of the Europeans that the Americans should not continue as at present they have and that NATO ought not to continue as it has, then perhaps they should say so.” The Europeans responded to that by saying precisely the reverse, there is a very strong support for NATO operating as it does now and that was not Contradicted by anyone in the conference we have had over the past two days.

    QUESTION (Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph):

    Chancellor Kohl is said to have invited or be about to invite the Presidents of Slovenia and Croatia to Bonn very shortly to discuss the conditions for German recognition of their two republics and Prime Minister Martens of Belgium has said that he doesn’t think Germany will wait much more than beyond the end of this month before recognising them on its own. Is that something you would welcome and what will you be saying to Chancellor Kohl when you meet him in the course of the next few days?

    My other question is about this WEU business. How far could you accept orders, mandates, suggestions being passed down from the European Council to the WEU? If it is not going to be subordinate, what relationship will it have with the EC?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Western European Union is not technically part of NATO – I think I should make that clear – but it will serve to strengthen the Alliance. We do see an organic link, a relationship, between the Western European Union and NATO and the European Community. There is very substantial common membership in it but we do not see it as being subordinate to the European Council and taking orders from the European Council or having its own policies agreed collectively within the European Council and Britain will not accept that. That is not a matter of dispute. We will not accept that and no-one has argued for that over the past two days.

    On the earlier point about Croatia, I am not going to comment on what Chancellor Kohl may or may not do at some stage in the future. I will no doubt have the opportunity of discussing this and other matters with him when I see him on Sunday and I am looking forward to that but I think that recognition is a little way down the road.

    The Foreign Secretary was involved in the discussions this morning; he may want to add something.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    We discussed the extent to which we should continue to act together in this matter and everybody agreed we must so I don’t think there is any question of individual EC member states acting on recognition by themselves. If you look at the Declaration that we put out it said in this respect they recall that the prospect of recognition of the independence of those republics wishing it can only be envisaged in the framework of an overall settlement that includes adequate guarantees for the protection of human rights and the rights of national or ethnic groups, i.e. there is a good deal of work still to be done.

    QUESTION (David Osborne, The Independent):

    To return to the European Defence Identity and the WEU, just as you are doing so here, President Mitterrand a few minutes ago expressed his complete satisfaction with the text and said he could ask for no more. Has anything happened here that makes you more confident that the differences between yourselves and the French in particular on this can be settled in time for Maastricht so that the defence question will not be an obstacle at Maastricht.

    On the Declaration of the Soviet Union, President Mitterrand said that he voted against it because he felt that parts of it made NATO look as if it were a preaching monk to the Soviet Union. Perhaps you could comment on his dissension on that point?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sorry the French were isolated on that point but that is a matter for President Mitterrand, not me.

    On the earlier question of the Western European Union and NATO, I am encouraged by the discussion over the past couple of days and encouraged particularly because of the huge common ground there was about the role of NATO, the central and prime importance of NATO – that was not, I repeat again, questioned by anybody; it was endorsed by everybody and on the basis of that, it seems to me unlikely that anybody is going to take action that would seek to undermine NATO’s position either in the short or the medium term so I think the whole of the discussion that we have had over the past few days has been very encouraging about the future of NATO, people’s allegiance to NATO and the prospect of the Western Europeans building up the Western European Union as the European pillar of the NATO Alliance.

    QUESTION (Hella Pick, The Guardian):

    If I could follow up on what you have just been saying – indeed everybody else – what a wonderful achievement NATO is able to record here, if you put this in the context of the Soviet crisis, do you think that NATO or indeed anyone in the West is really able to respond to the challenge that is coming from here and in particular, how do you envisage crisis management and the maintenance of peace and stability that has been outlined in these Declarations?

    In your capacity as Chairman of the G7, do you intend to offer any more substantial aid now to the Soviet Union beyond the emergency food aid which you have mentioned? On the position of the G7, do you feel able to proceed with any massive injection of capital and other forms of aid to the Soviet Union for economic restructuring or do you think all this is now being halted by their inability to meet their present debt obligations and the uncertainties in the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The latter points are under continuing discussion with G7 Deputies and elsewhere but when we are quite clear what the situation is, we will be able to make a decision. I am afraid if you have in mind help in the nature of balance of payments help or debt help, which I suspect you did have, I think substantial decisions on that are still some way away.

    On food aid, there is no doubt in principle about our willingness to assist and I set out earlier the fact that I believe we will need to have some of that aid in place this side of Christmas and it may be that what we would have in place would be the stand-by credits rather than the physical delivery of food but there is a great deal of information that we still need before we can be entirely clear what is required and where.

    As to the future role of NATO and whether it can play a role, I think there are several things that suggest that it can and there are helpful signs. One of them, of course, is the extent to which the Eastern European states now support the retention of NATO, are very keen to have a relationship with NATO and the discussions that will take place in the newly-formed Cooperation Council. They will begin, as I indicated earlier, at Foreign Minister level. Quite how they will continue after that is not entirely clear but I suspect they will continue at ambassadorial level; that is the most likely outcome and it does mean that we will have a continuing relationship with the Eastern European nations and will be able to deal with matters on a regular basis and hopefully iron out difficulties before they become international sores. That is the intention so the role of NATO is changing to the extent that it is seeking to promote peace rather than simply defend ourselves if our own security is threatened.

    QUESTION (Mark Laity, BBC):

    Relating to that, do you see the Cooperation Council ever ultimately leading to some form of associate membership, security guarantee or full membership for nations and relating to that, yesterday you were quite in favour of an expanded out-of-area role for NATO and a proposal which was included in the communique at one point is not there so was there a problem over getting any out-of-area commitment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the subject of associate membership, I think it is a little early to say. I certainly would not rule that out in the long term but I think it is self-evident there are a clear number of difficulties with that in the short term and I don’t envisage that as being a short-term option but I certainly think the developing relationship is attractive, is necessary and will prove effective.

    On the out-of-area role, I was casting my mind forward to future roles for NATO; it wasn’t a matter that was under substantive discussion this weekend so it was neither agreed nor disagreed.

    QUESTION (Robert Morton, Financial Times):

    Prime Minister, on the WEU you said that Britain doesn’t see this organisation as being subordinate to the European Community institutions nor taking orders from them. At the same, you said there will be some link with the European Community. What sort of link are you thinking of exactly?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When I said it wasn’t subordinate, I was referring of course particularly to some of the aspects in the Franco-German text some time ago which held out the prospect that the Western European Union would be subordinate to the European Council. That is not acceptable to us and we have made that clear but there are going to be, I trust, what are called “organic links”. The European Council can give guidelines, it can set out what it thinks and it has a very substantial common membership with the Western European Union but operationally the Western European Union cannot be subordinate to the European Council – that is the core point of substance upon which we feel most strongly.

    QUESTION (Peter Jenkins, The Independent):

    Following up what you said a moment ago, would you agree that the enlargement of NATO to the East is now effectively on the long-term agenda and if not, could you state precisely what the short-term difficulties that you mentioned a moment ago – associate membership and so on – precisely what they are?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just take the question in the larger sense first:

    I have argued in the past for the desirability of the European Community itself also making it clear that when Eastern European countries are economically ready we should admit them into the European Community. The structure of Europe is changing. It follows, I think inexorably as night follows day, that if I think it is proper in the medium-term for the Eastern European nations to join the European Community, I would not object to the Eastern European nations also joining in the defence establishment for the security of the West – NATO – but I think it is some time away.

    The sensitivity, of course, that exists at the moment is that if NATO were to readily accept entry into NATO of some of the Eastern European countries, I think that might well have an unsettling effect on other Eastern European nations, not least the Soviet republics, and I don’t think that is wise at the moment but I do think we should have this ongoing dialogue and as the years unfold no doubt other opportunities will present themselves.

    QUESTION (Ian Davidson, Financial Times):

    At the London NATO Summit, the Declaration referred to nuclear weapons which were described as “weapons of last resort”. In the new Strategic Concept, those words do not appear. Could you tell me whether there was any discussion in particular of the nature and role of nuclear weapons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, there was not. The concept of the use of nuclear weapons I think remains as it was before except that of course the volume – the quantity – of nuclear weapons has been substantially reduced in Europe by around 80 percent but it was not a matter of substantial discussion over the last few days.

    QUESTION (Michael Evans, The Times):

    Just wrapping up the WEU thing, apart from the point that you have already made very clearly about the WEU and its subordination or non-subordination, can you think or two or three other precise points which you will be making on this particular issue at Maastricht from which you will need satisfaction from the Germans, the French and others?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I can but if you mean am I going to outline them now, I am afraid no, I am not. I am in the midst of a round of discussions on European matters with our European colleagues. Over the period that I have been here, I have had discussions with Prime Minister Lubbers and a number of other European colleagues, Prime Minister Schluter I have met also, the Prime Minister da Silva of Portugal I have met and Prime Minister Adreotti of Italy, I am going to see Chancellor Kohl on Sunday, I will be seeing President Mitterrand, I have further meetings with other European leaders between now and Maastricht, so there is a great deal of bilateral discussion to be had upon the particular point that you raised and I think it has to be said upon one or two other points as well but I don’t want to elaborate on it now.

    QUESTION (John Craig, Today):

    You have been a bit dismissive this morning about Labour’s victory in Langbaurgh. The fact is they won and you lost. You have not won a by-election I think since Richmond and you were absolutely trounced by the Liberal Democrats up on Scotland. These are rather bad results for you, aren’t they?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did lose at Langbaurgh with a swing of 3.5 percent against us; we did lose at Hemsworth with a swing of 3 percent against us, both to Labour. The fact of the matter is that Labour need a 5.5 percent swing to win a general election from the Conservatives to Labour and in a by-election, after twelve years of government at the end of a recession with all the by-election factors that traditionally arise, they only managed to get about one-half of that swing. I think if I were a Labour Member of Parliament I would of course celebrate the two victories that they have had and I would enjoy that celebration because casting the trend of those victories forward, I would not expect as a Labour Member to win a general election on those figures and indeed they would not, so for that reason I think that although I regret the fact that we lost Langbaurgh, it was an astonishingly good result in many ways.

    The Conservative vote held up, the swing against the Conservatives in a by-election was remarkably low, not just in the history of the last couple of years of by-elections but if you go back through the history of the last fifteen or twenty years of by-elections you will find very few by-elections where the swing against the governing party in a Tory/Labour or indeed Labour/Tory marginal has been so small.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky TV):

    I just wondered if we could ask you a question about the Scottish dimension because you yourself have devoted a lot of energy since you became Prime Minister to Scotland and yet the Tories now I think are level pegging as far as representation goes with the Liberals. Does this really make it conceivable that a Conservative Government, if you win the-next election, could go on governing Scotland where you don’t really have a mandate at all?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are jumping a long way ahead from a by-election to a general election. It is not all that long ago in this Parliament that the Liberals were getting swings from the Conservatives in by-elections as protests of something over 20 percent. This was half that and in many ways it is a rather unusual and odd by-election. There is certainly said to be a great deal of protest about the decision on Scottish regiments but I think it is a protest vote for this reason: because the Liberal Party’s policies would be to halve defence expenditure; that would be bound to affect Scottish regiments, indeed it is arguable that there might not be any Scottish regiments left, so I think it must be seen as a by-election protest vote.

    We are just coming out of recession, there were local issues in that particular by-election and that, I believe, is acknowledged not just by us but by everybody else who visited the by-election or knows anything about it.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep with Ruud Lubbers – 7 November 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with Ruud Lubbers, held in Rome on Thursday 7th November 1991.

    QUESTION:

    What are you hoping to cover at this summit meeting?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are a number of important things to discuss at this meeting this week. Clearly it is an opportunity to reaffirm the primacy of NATO, I think that is central to what we will agree this week, and we clearly have to look at the emerging situation in central and Eastern Europe, that is a matter of very great importance. We need to determine in the changed circumstances one has seen over the past two years or so what the future strategy of NATO is going to be. I think they are the areas that we will spend some time discussing, they are extremely important, and I think we will reach conclusions that will be satisfactory to everyone.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, have you asked Mr Lubbers to organise a second European Summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nobody knows whether a second European Summit will be necessary, I very much doubt it, he is such a good President that we are confident that there will be great progress made and I hope we will reach agreement.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with President Bush- 7 November 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with President Bush, held in Rome on Thursday 7th November 1991.

    QUESTION:

    Do you expect any concrete [inaudible] European defence identity in the role of NATO?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I think that will all be smooth, don’t you Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Absolutely, we are all here to reinforce NATO.

    QUESTION:

    Can you really swear that the American [inaudible] role?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    We are going to have a sufficient force to take care of our obligation in our own national security interests and one of those fundamental national security interests is a vigorous participation in NATO, it is in the interests of the United States to do this as well as in the interests of the Alliance, so that is the way I would handle that one and I am just not going to leave here until every single member of NATO understands that, but I think they all do.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think that there is any doubt about it. Nowhere in Europe is there any wish to see any damage done to NATO and everywhere in Europe is there a total understanding that NATO has been a guarantor of our security for 40-odd years, that is how it has been, that is how it will stay.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, the position in Europe is that the Europeans feel they have to take a greater share of the overall burden and we all agree with that, it is the overall burden within the NATO [inaudible].

  • PMQT -7 November 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Hon. Members : Where is he?

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I call the Leader of the House.

    Mr. MacGregor : This morning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a bilateral with President Bush in Rome. He is currently attending the NATO summit now under way there. That summit will set the future course for NATO to ensure that it remains as it has been–a bedrock of stability in a still uncertain world. The fact that Opposition Members should regret the fact that my right hon. Friend is in Rome, shows how little attention they pay to defence and NATO matters. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This kind of thing gives a very bad impression elsewhere.

    Mr. Jessel : On Europe, to put it beyond all doubt in this House, in the country, and on the continent, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government that Britain shall not go down the route of a federal Europe and that it is for Britain to decide on the future of her own currency?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are not going down the route of a federal Europe. With regard to a single currency and economic and monetary union, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government are not prepared to commit Britain now to a single currency. We will be able shortly to debate those matters more fully in the House, but we have on many occasions made it clear that this Parliament will decide on the single currency issue at some date well into the future if and when it should arise.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is the– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I call Mr. Kinnock.

    Hon. Members : Where is he?

    Mr. Kinnock : All present and correct, Sir.

    Is the Leader of the House aware that three times in the past 24 hours the Chancellor of the Exchequer has refused to answer direct questions about the Government’s plans for further increases in VAT? Is that not surprising because the Chancellor has repeatedly been eager to make precise pledges of cuts in income tax to 20p in the medium term? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now, in precise terms, what are the Government’s plans for making further increases in VAT?

    Mr. MacGregor : The right hon. Gentleman will be all present on the Opposition Benches for some time to come and will not be leading for Britain at future NATO summits. In answer to his question, the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the commitment to income tax is one that would extend over the lifetime of the future Parliament and perhaps beyond that. That is a general commitment for some time to come. No precise dates have been given. It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to ask questions about tax, given the very high public spending commitments to which his party is committed.

    Mr. Kinnock : The Leader of the House has even changed the line on what the Chancellor said on income tax this morning. As far as talking about tax is concerned, I realise the right hon. Gentleman’s sensitivity. His Government have, after all, lifted the tax burden on the British people to the highest of any Government in history. The right hon. Gentleman is wriggling. Since the Prime Minister has announced the target rate for income tax, surely he can announce the target rate for VAT. If he can tell us the one, surely he can tell us the other. Why are the Government so specific on income tax and so shifty on VAT?

    Mr. MacGregor : The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the commitment on income tax is a longer-term one and that we hope to achieve it as and when conditions permit and when it is prudent to do so. We have made that clear on many occasions. But it is really not for him to argue the case about taxes because, as we well know– [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like that. The reason they do not like it is that they are so sensitive about it. We know perfectly well that the Labour party has committed itself to an additional £35,000 million of public spending and no capping on local authority expenditure. The two combined would mean a very high increase in the tax and community charge burden on all people.

    Mr. Kinnock : The longer that the right hon. Gentleman speaks, the less he convinces. Will he tell us now? After making huge rises in VAT in the past 12 years, what are the Government’s plans to make further increases in VAT?

    Mr. MacGregor : The Government have made their public expenditure plans absolutely clear, and they are clear on the normal basis. It is equally clear–the right hon. Gentleman has not refuted this–that, in fact, the £35 billion spending commitment of the Labour party would mean either a very big increase in income tax and/or a very big increase in VAT, and it would be likely to be both.

    Mr. Michael Brown : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s proposals to introduce powers to prevent local authorities from excessive spending by means of capping will be very well received by all those in Labour-controlled authorities who have to put up with excessive tax bills? Does my right hon. Friend agree also that those people will not welcome the pledge that was given from the Opposition Benches yesterday to ensure that high-spending Labour authorities can go with gay abandon to yet higher spending?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a point that will have to be stressed again and again. On top of the increased taxes-direct and indirect taxes that would come from their spending pledges–the Opposition have now committed themselves to no capping on high-spending local authorities. That can mean only higher community charge and council tax bills as well.

     

    Q2. Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Sir David Steel : Is the Lord President aware that, at the end of last week, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry warmly welcomed the Government committee report recommending, among other environmental measures, an increase in petrol tax? They have referred that recommendation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will he ensure before the Budget that, in any such conservation measure, account is taken of the needs of rural areas where– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Interruptions take a lot of time.

    Sir David Steel : Admittedly including the area that we will represent after today, in rural areas in which the car is a necessity and in which the cost of petrol is already high, what compensatory measures are the Government prepared to support?

    Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friends have not committed the Government to any position on tax, but I notice that, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman wants to have it both ways. As it would put it, the Liberal Democratic party claims to make people face up to hard decisions by increasing pricing and taxes. However, because some of its Members of Parliament come from rural areas, they want those rural areas to be protected. It is typical of the right hon. Gentleman and his party to make different noises in different places.

    Mr. Lord : Does my right hon. Friend agree that nothing is more damaging to the fabric of a nation than the failure properly to educate its children? May I urge him to press for a return to traditional standards of teaching in our primary schools as soon as possible?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that what we are doing through the national curriculum, and especially in the testing of seven, 11, 14 and 16-year-olds, will ensure not only that we can monitor progress on standards, but that pupils who are falling behind will be given the assistance that they need to improve. The point of our educational reforms is to improve standards.

     

    Q3. Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Campbell : The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that 22 November is the first anniversary of the sinking of the fishing vessel Antares in the Firth of Clyde as a result of its gear being snagged by the submarine HMS Trenchant. However, is he aware that the Royal Navy is proposing to hold a similar exercise in the same waters on the day immediately following that anniversary? Is not the timing of that exercise particularly insensitive, and is there any reason why it should not be postponed for a period of, say, a week as a mark of respect to the crew of the Antares, all of whom perished when the vessel was sunk?

    Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows the considerable steps that have been taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to deal with the aftermath of that tragic incident. I shall draw the hon. and learned Gentleman’s particular point to my right hon. Friend’s attention.

    Mr. Rathbone : As our Prime Minister is away at such an important summit conference–important for the security of the whole of the western world–does my right hon. Friend think it appropriate at this moment to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to that European pillar, the Western European Union?

    Mr. MacGregor : Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We have made it absolutely clear that, in our view, that body will play an important part in our future defence position. I am sure that that will be discussed today at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

     

    Q4. Mr. Gareth Wardell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Wardell : In view of his admission some weeks ago that this Government have imposed the heaviest tax burden in British history, will the right hon. Gentleman now apologise for the Chancellor’s wholly inaccurate statement to the House yesterday that the Government have been cutting taxes ever since 1979?

    Mr. MacGregor : The truth of the matter is that we have seen a substantial reduction in direct tax rates, a substantial improvement in standards of living and, as a result of the reduction in tax rates, an improvement in the tax base, which has enabled us not only to achieve increased public spending on a large scale in our key priority areas, especially health, but to achieve a reduction in direct income tax and, overall, considerably to improve our public sector borrowing requirement.

     

    Q5. Mr. Andrew Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Mitchell : Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is widespread support among parents for the Government’s proposal that schools should make their public examination results available for publication in common form? Does he agree that that would give parents an objective answer to the question, “How is my child’s school doing?”, as well as further pressing back the frontiers of choice in education?

    Mr. MacGregor : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He refers to an important part of the reforms that we are undertaking. I pay tribute to him for first raising the subject of league tables for schools’ performances in the Bill that he introduced earlier in the year. League tables of examination results, destinations of school leavers, truancy rates and all the other items that we are suggesting will be an important aid towards improving parental choice. I was glad to note that that was endorsed by the chairman of the Audit Commission this morning.

    Ms. Primarolo : Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government voted against the EC directive on maternity leave which would have given women a minimum of 16 weeks of maternity leave and protection from being sacked because they are pregnant? This is the second time in less than two weeks that the Government have failed to respond to the Prime Minister’s so-called commitment to women’s equality. Why should women believe anything that the Government say?

    Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Lady is wrong. An agreement was reached yesterday which represents a sensible balance on maternity pay. It carries forward the interests of women without imposing an undue burden on employers. The Government abstained on a different aspect relating to the Treaty of Rome basis. We did not believe that the issue should have come within that particular article. That is why we abstained. The political agreement was reached clearly.

    Under our policies more than one in three of the jobs created in the European Community for women were created during the past eight years in Britain. That is a clear indication of the opportunity and choice that we give.

     

    Q.6 Mr. Thorne : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Thorne : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures given yesterday for expenditure on the national health service, education and transport show our clear commitment to expenditure on those items? Does he agree that those people in the House who advocate expenditure without saying how much they are prepared to spend are entirely unconvincing?

    Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend is right. The autumn statement yesterday demonstrated that we have substantially increased in real terms– after inflation–the spending in each of the three areas that my hon. Friend mentioned. Indeed, in health the additions announced yesterday represent £50 more for every man, woman and child in Britain. That means that the increase in health spending since we took office is 55 per cent. in real terms. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the high additional spending programmes of some £35 billion advocated by the Labour party, which would put a crippling tax burden on so many families in Britain.

  • PMQT – 20 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    NATO

    Q1. Dr. Godman : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to meet the leaders of other NATO member states to discuss, inter alia, the membership, structure, functions and policy objectives of the organisation and related matters ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : NATO Heads of State and Government will meet in Rome on 7 and 8 November. Our main task will be to conclude the review of NATO’s role, strategy and force structures set in hand by the summit in London last July. Good progress has already been made. The reformed alliance will continue to provide the essential basis for our security in the 1990s.

    Dr. Godman : I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but may I point out to him that, in Scotland, there is growing concern over what appears to be a piecemeal and fragmented restructuring of the armed forces of all the NATO countries, including the United Kingdom? Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that the rapid reaction force will never be deployed outwith mainland Europe unless and until it receives the specific authority of the United St United Nations. [Interruption.] I said the United Nations and not the United States as I never want to see young Scots, or young men from anywhere in the United Kingdom, being turned into cannon fodder at the behest of an American President skilfully exploiting the sycophantic support of NATO leaders.

    The Prime Minister : Let me say first how much I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom will command the future NATO rapid reaction force. That is a key role for the British Army and one which I think it will perform splendidly, both in the interests of this country and of NATO. The specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised is quite clear. The purpose of the rapid reaction corps is to defend NATO territory ; it is not a signal of a more interventionist NATO approach elsewhere.

    Sir Robert McCrindle : When the Prime Minister comes to consider these matters, will he also take into account the enormous advantage of the participation of the United States and Canada in NATO, mapping it out, in the opinion of many of us, as a much more effective medium of western defence than any of the alternatives recommended?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. The presence of north American forces in Europe is absolutely essential; by that I mean US conventional and nuclear contributions, both of which are irreplaceable. They are here now and I hope, trust and believe that they will be here in the future.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Janner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

    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 have further meetings later today.

    Mr. Janner : Does the Prime Minister know precisely how much, in pounds and pence, a single old-age pensioner has on which to live for a week? Does he regard it as adequate?

    The Prime Minister : It would depend on his individual circumstances : whether he received income support, whether he had any state earnings- related pension supplement or a raft of other special payments.

     

    Q3. Mr. Roger King : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

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

    Mr. King : Will my right hon. Friend give a pledge to the House that he and his Government will never increase funding for various aspects of Government by plundering the wage packet of the British working man and woman? Will he further compare his Government’s spending– [Interruption.] –spending policies with those alluded to by the Opposition, whose policies of spend, spend, spend– [Hon. Members :– “Spund, spund, spund.”]–have no regard to how they will be paid for?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that people in this country need only look at our record on cutting the direct rate of taxation to be clear about the fact that we would not be in favour of increasing it. The Labour party, by contrast, is in favour of much higher spending, which can be met only by much higher taxation, not just for the well-off, but for those on the standard rate of income tax. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary has shown that vividly this morning.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister recognise that in their recent comments, both of his Tory predecessors were only trying to help him? Which of them did he find most helpful?

    The Prime Minister : The greatest help that this party often receives is from the right hon. Gentleman himself.

    Mr. Kinnock : That must be why we are 10 points ahead and are winning by-elections. Why will not the Prime Minister tell us? It is a straightforward question–is he closest to the last leader of the Conservative party or to the last but one leader, or is he just piggy in the middle?

    The Prime Minister : I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I can tell him that I have no intention of being distracted from the policy on Europe which I have set out clearly and repeatedly in the House.

    I shall continue to negotiate in Europe for an outcome that I can safely recommend to the House. It will then be for the House to decide on it.

    Mr. Waller : Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider what the implications for taxation and public spending would be if the privatisation programme were to come to an end? Furthermore, what would happen if British Telecom, the water industry and the electricity grid were to be renationalised?

    The Prime Minister : The privatisation receipts are about £5.5 billion a year. That is the equivalent of nearly 3p on the standard rate of income tax, so clearly to abandon those receipts would lead either to higher borrowing or to higher taxation. There can be no doubt about that.

     

    Q4 . Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

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

    Mr. Bennett : I am sure that the Prime Minister would want to be fair. If he is so keen to have everything costed, has he had Majorism costed, or is he merely sending the bill for that to the unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman plumbs new triviality with each question that he asks. In the past decade, conservatism has delivered a far higher standard of living for the people of this country than ever before and so it will in the next decade.

    Sir Ian Stewart : When my right hon. Friend goes to the European Council, will he accept that he carries with him the good wishes of all Conservative Members and our gratitude for the constructive and responsible way in which he has tackled serious and important constitutional issues? Will he take the opportunity to point out to his colleagues in the other European countries that any rapid move to a single currency, before the economies of the various countries in Europe are very much closer in performance, would produce disastrous consequences which would be far more likely to blow the European Community apart than to lead to greater unity?

    The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with every word that my right hon. Friend has said. I have made the point consistently over the past 15 months that until and unless there is proper convergence of the European economies, it would be utter folly even to contemplate a single currency.

     

    Q5. Mr. Loyden : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Loyden : The Prime Minister will be aware of the stand taken by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the threat to ICI. What will the Prime Minister’s stance be in the event of a hostile bid being made by Hanson to take over ICI?

    The Prime Minister : There has been no such takeover bid and it would, therefore, be entirely inappropriate for me to comment.

     

    Q6. Mr. Beaumont-Dark : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at early-day motion 902, which is an all-party motion tabled by, among others, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? It concerns Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray. Through no fault of theirs–whoever’s fault it was, they were not on a holiday jaunt–they lost their legs in a tragic accident. With his well-known compassion and concern for individuals who have problems, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will look at the problem with that compassion so that we can come to the right decision, which is to care for the individual who serves this state?

    The Prime Minister : This is a very tragic accident. I am sure that the whole House feels that deeply and we offer our sympathy to the guardsmen concerned. The board of inquiry has examined the matter carefully and has reached the conclusion that it was a tragic accident and that no one was culpable for the dreadful affair. I am examining the matter, but I must do so on the basis of legal liability.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister agree with his predecessor when she said that joining the exchange rate mechanism relegated Ministers to the status of innocent bystanders at an accident? If he agrees, how would he describe himself–as the bystander or the accident?

    The Prime Minister : We entered the exchange rate mechanism last year when my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister and I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was right to enter the mechanism then ; it is right for us to be members of the mechanism now. I made it absolutely clear at the time that I felt that that was the best way in which to ensure that we not only got inflation on a downward trend, but kept it on a downward trend. We are in the exchange rate mechanism ; we are staying in it. In due course, we shall move to the narrow bands.

     

    Q.7 Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list he official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Coombs : In considering local government matters in the light of the appalling record of the past eight years of the Labour administration in Liverpool–the appalling inefficiency, massive debts and uncollected refuse there, and the impending gravediggers’ strike–does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition that the Labour council there–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is not the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

    Mr. Coombs : –with the statement made yesterday that the council there is merely trying to provide– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Coombs : When considering the reform of local government, does my right hon. Friend agree that the appalling inefficiency of Liverpool should be rate-capped and in future should be avoided by local government reform, or is the statement of the Leader of the Opposition merely pie in the sky?

    The Prime Minister : The whole country will observe what has happened in Liverpool over recent years and will be perfectly well aware where the blame for that lies. As the Labour Co-ordinating Committee has written about Labour councils :

    “They demonstrate as far as the public is concerned, what a Labour Government would be like”.

    Mr. Ashley : Is the Prime Minister aware that when considering the future of Britain the volatility of a couple of Prime Ministers is a trivial sideshow compared with the potential volatility of £84 billion sterling hot money as a result of the Government’s incompetence? How far can the Prime Minister say that he is confident that there will be no sterling crisis before the next general election?

    The Prime Minister : If there were to be a sterling crisis, it would occur only if there were no longer a Conservative Government.

     

    Q.8 Mr. Quentin Davies : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June.

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

    Mr. Davies : Does my right hon. Friend agree that even marginal increases in taxation can have a serious effect on incentives and that even marginal increases in Government borrowing can have a serious effect on inflation and interest rates and that to increase borrowing and taxation by something like £35 billion would have catastrophic effects on the British economy?

    The Prime Minister : There is absolutely no doubt about that. In practice it would mean either dramatically higher borrowing with consequentially much higher interest rates and mortgages, or it would mean up to an extra 15p on the standard rate of income tax to 40p in the pound. With a policy of adding national insurance contributions throughout the income scale, that would make us one of the highest-taxed countries in the industrial world.