Tag: Saudi Arabia

  • PMQT – 30 January 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 30th January 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    United Nations Secretary-General

    Q1. Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had on the election of a successor to Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations, when he last met (a) President Chirac and (b) Chancellor Kohl.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): None.

    Dr. Godman: In addition to a new Secretary-General, is there not a need for a deputy Secretary-General, as advocated by Sir David Hannay, to take charge of administration and finance, thereby allowing the new Secretary-General to re-examine most carefully such serious matters as Lockerbie and Libyan sanctions? At the very least, do we not need a public debate on those appointments and on reform of the United Nations?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree about the need to reform the United Nations. I raised that at the last meeting of the G7, where there was general agreement about it. In terms of internal reform, I can see some justification for a deputy Secretary-General, and I can certainly see some for a proper reform of the United Nations. By reform, I mean not just a reform of procedures but the abolition of many United Nations bodies that no longer serve a useful purpose.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of my constituents strongly support the Government’s measures to give the Attorney-General power to appeal against unduly lenient sentences? Is not the fact that the Labour party voted against that yet another example of hypocrisy?

    The Prime Minister: It is a matter of record that the Labour party voted against that measure, but it has voted against many other law-and-order measures over recent months, such as the right to silence. We increased the maximum penalty for cruelty to children from two years to 10–Labour opposed that. We increased the maximum penalty for carrying a gun in crime–Labour opposed us. The reality is that it may sometimes use tough words on crime, but when it comes to actions it is very soft.

    Mr. Blair: Conservative Members should remember that under their party crime has doubled.

    Does the Prime Minister share and understand the sense of anger of the British people at the behaviour of the privatised water companies? Given the figures released today showing that the cost of delivering water to customers has risen by almost £300 million and that although water companies’ profits rose to a record level last year their investment fell, is not it high time that they were properly regulated in the public interest?

    The Prime Minister: With reference to his earlier remarks, the right hon. Gentleman might also remember that under this Government crime is falling for the first time in 40 years. [Interruption.] Statistics show that quite clearly, across a whole range of crime, and that is something that no previous Government have been able to say.

    When he refers to the privatised water industry, the right hon. Gentleman would do well to remember, too, that “Governments cannot run companies”. [Interruption.] I am interested to hear that the Opposition disagree with that, because I was quoting the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

    Mr. Blair: Yes, but Governments can regulate those companies, and this Government are not regulating them. Will the Prime Minister confirm that over the past few years investment has been falling, that prices to customers have risen by more than 40 per cent., that 500,000 gallons of water are now being leaked every minute of every day and that customer complaints have doubled? Those are the facts about the water industry under this Government. Why do the Prime Minister, his Cabinet and his other colleagues defend each and every action of the water companies, rather than standing up for the customers who are being fleeced by them?

    The Prime Minister: About £15 billion has been invested in the water industry since privatisation, £1 billion more than originally planned. That is because over several decades in the public sector there were not sufficient resources for investment in the water industry or in other public utilities. Of course, there is investment in them now, not least by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers as a shareholder. That union sponsors the deputy leader of the Labour party; it is one of the stakeholders in the Labour party, and also one of the shareholders in the water industry and in most of the other privatised industries. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. We have very little time. Keep quiet.

    Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend will have seen the lead stories in today’s editions of the Financial Times and The Times. Will he confirm that universities are, in law, private bodies, that their financial relations with their students are a matter for them to determine and that the Government have no intention of nationalising the universities?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly see no need for universities to introduce top-up fees. They certainly complain about how they have been treated by the Government. Between 1989-90 and 1994-95, university funding rose by 23 per cent. over and above inflation. I hope that the vice-chancellors will recall that when they consider their future policy.

    Mr. Ashdown: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his claim last night that the Conservative party is the only party interested in law and order with the fact that although he promised at the general election to increase the number of police officers on the streets by 1,000, the latest figures show that the number has fallen by 1,000? Is that what he means by saying one thing and doing another?

    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman looks more carefully at what is happening in law and order. If he does he will see that right across the range, for the first time in 40 years, crime is falling. He will also see the resources there for an extra 5,000 police officers–

    Mr. Ashdown indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister: There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman’s living in some Disneyland of his own and waving his hands about; those are the facts. It is the Conservative party that has toughened the law and order position time and again, and his party, and the Labour party, have been in the Opposition Lobby whenever we have sought to do that.

    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give the House a firm undertaking that he will not take advice on law and order from the party that would change the meaning of the Sunday joint?

    The Prime Minister: I happily give my hon. Friend that assurance.

     

    Q3. Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

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

    Mr. Davies: To return to education, does the Prime Minister recall that his Government slashed school budgets by £500 million last year, causing great difficulty to school heads? Does he recognise that the Government have slashed the higher education budget by £300 million this year, causing great difficulty to vice-chancellors? Why should our institutions and their students suffer because of the Government’s economic failure?

    The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, the Government’s economic policy is exceeding in a more spectacular fashion than that of any other Government in western Europe. Spending per pupil in the mainstream sector has risen by about 50 per cent. over and above inflation since 1979.

    Mr. Blunkett: The true figure is 4 per cent.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), Labour’s education spokesman, is shouting from a sedentary position. It is a novel relief for him to do so, rather than be undermined by the Labour leader in every single thing that he says about education.

    On higher education, the hon. Gentleman would do better to refer to his party’s policy document, which says that

    “Labour is looking to raise funds from individuals using”–

    [Interruption]

    I apologise for my cold, Madam Speaker, but the reference to Labour’s policy document stands. It reveals that

    “Labour is looking to raise funds from individuals using and directly benefiting from higher education.”

    That is Labour’s own policy document–I hope that it will not deny that policy.

     

    Q4. Mr. Thomason: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

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

    Mr. Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that selective schools will remain a part of our education system? Did he hear the Leader of the Opposition yesterday ducking and diving on his party’s schools policies?

    The Prime Minister: Not only yesterday. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman ducks and weaves. The hon. Member for Brightside says that he has no truck with middle-class, left-wing parents who preach one thing and do another. I cannot think who he might have had in mind. The hon. Gentleman tells us to watch his lips–there will be no more selection under a Labour Government. The party’s education spokesman says one thing, while the leader says another. Labour is split on education from top to bottom.

     

    Q5. Mr. Tipping: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January.

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

    Mr. Tipping: How would the Prime Minister describe someone who, before the general election, promised not to extend the scope of VAT, but after the election extended VAT and imposed it on fuel at 8 per cent.? Would he describe that person as a hypocrite or a liar?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should look at the economic performance that has been achieved under this Government. If he does so, I defy him to find any western economy that can match the current performance of this economy under this Government.

    Mr. Hawksley: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read of the four children aged 11 in Handsworth in Birmingham, who have been put through the fast-track education system and who have received the praise of the Leader of the Opposition? Is my right hon. Friend aware that all four have won places at a grammar school, and will he reassure the parents of those children that, under this Government, their grammar school places will be safe?

    The Prime Minister: I can certainly offer my hon. Friend that assurance. He highlights yet again the shambles of the Opposition’s policy. They say that they support grammar schools, but they oppose selection. They say that they support special treatment for pupils, but they oppose streaming. They say that they support parental choice for the shadow Cabinet, but for no one else.

     

    Q6. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Saudi Arabia to discuss human rights.

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

    Mr. Corbyn: Does not the Prime Minister think that it is time that the British Government put human rights before arms sales, sought an urgent meeting with the Saudi Government on the abuses of human rights there, explained why BBC broadcasts to Saudi Arabia have been censored and explained why the British Government, with their craven attitude towards that autocratic regime, are trying to deport Dr. al-Masari from this country?

    The Prime Minister: We and our European partners regularly discuss human rights with the Saudi Arabian Government and with others. I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman has a rather unusual version of human rights, because it was him who said:

    “We assert the right of all people to follow their own conscientious beliefs even if it involves them in breaking the law.”

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Jedda – 19 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Jedda, held on Monday 19th September 1994.


    QUESTION:

    Can we just ask you about developments in Haiti? You must be relieved that it is not going to be a full-scale hostile invasion.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen the full details of what has happened yet but as I understand it, it looks as though there may be a settlement without the need for armed force and clearly that is very welcome, I am very pleased indeed about that.

    QUESTION:

    We understand though that American troops are going in to safeguard the arrangements but there are dangers still ahead presumably?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is my understanding but I think that must have been agreed by negotiation between President Carter and the junta and I think that probably is the right way to proceed?

    QUESTION:

    How did your talks with the Custodian [indistinct]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me firstly say that I am absolutely delighted to be back here in Saudi Arabia. There was absolutely no doubt whatever from our discussions about the warmth and the strength of the relationship between our two countries. The talks could scarcely have been better, I was delighted with them.

    QUESTION:

    Did you also discuss Iraq?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We discussed Iraq, we discussed Iran, we discussed Yemen, we discussed a whole range of regional and international problems.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, that was not a matter for discussion.

    QUESTION:

    What of the future?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have strengthened a relationship that was strong before, has lasted for a long time and will endure.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Jedda – 19 September 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to British Businessmen in Jedda on Monday 19th September 1994.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Patrick, thank you very much! I have to say to you that it says nothing about being eccentric as an expatriate but if you think being an expatriate is eccentric, how eccentric is it to cease being an expatriate and go into politics? That I must tell you is real eccentricity!

    Let me just say a few words this morning in the brief time we have got together and then I would like to leave as much of the time as we can for whatever questions you have.

    Let me say firstly I am delighted to see so many of you here this morning and delighted to be here myself. I had last evening a very lengthy audience with King Fahd following the banquet that he most generously gave in my honour and one thing strikes me always when I come back to Saudi Arabia – and it was certainly very evident in our discussions last evening – and that is the truly excellent state of relations between Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom. I say that not as a matter of form but as a matter of fact. Those relations are excellent in their warmth, in their breadth, in their depth, diplomatically, politically and in terms of trade and commerce and we speak to each other, the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia, over many years as friends with common interests in the region and common interests in the world that bind us together and we share a particular concern for the continued stability of the Gulf to which we make a substantial contribution whether on the ground or in New York at the United Nations.

    More recently of course we have kept in touch on a range of matters, about events in Yemen during the civil war, so the first thing that I would like to assure you of this morning is that you will be able to continue to work here in Saudi Arabia against the background of an excellent political relationship at all levels. We are determined that that will remain the case.

    The trading relationship, you know as much as I do of that but let me simply say that the relationship between our two countries as far as trade is concerned is flourishing as never before. We export goods and services worth close to 2 billion pounds a year to Saudi Arabia, total trade is over 3 billion pounds a year; Saudi Arabia is our largest export market outside the OECD with the single exception of that rather special case of Hong Kong and what is becoming increasingly satisfactory is that this is becoming increasingly a two-way relationship. We are delighted that high-quality Saudi goods were on show last week in London at Olympia and I know that British companies are looking hard at the opportunities to invest in Saudi Arabia through joint ventures and our OFFSET programme is designed specifically to assist this. We believe that we have a great deal to offer that may assist Saudi Arabia from our experience in privatisation and I have made it clear to the Custodian that such experience as we have is available upon request to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On this occasion, this is all too brief a visit but I had the very clear impression that it strengthened yet further the already close bonds that exist between Britain and Saudi Arabia.

    Let me turn to a few British matters for a moment before I take questions and I would like to say just a few words about the British economy.

    There has been a continuing change for some time but I think perhaps the scale of the opportunities that lie immediately ahead of us is not wholly appreciated, I doubt yet that it is wholly appreciated domestically and certainly not internationally. Britain, I believe, is at an historic turning point. We are now standing at the threshold of an economic recovery unlike any we have seen since the Second World War and we are determined that this is going to be a recovery without inflation, a recovery that will last, a recovery for the long term, a recovery that will provide the springboard to our exporters to capture and then hold for the long term foreign markets and I say that after a careful examination of the facts and it is worth perhaps setting some of them out very briefly:

    Total national output has now risen for over two years; manufacturing output is now 4% higher than a year ago; we have the fastest-growing industrial production of all major European Union countries and the IMF, OECD and ourselves expect this happy trend to continue in 1995.

    Our export volumes are hitting record levels, they are 10% higher than a year ago and are outpacing imports. Inflation is at a low not seen for a generation and well below the average of our European Union competitors and not many of you experienced businessmen will recall that circumstance on many occasions in the past.

    Investment is up 6% higher than just a year ago; consumer demand is now growing at around 3% a year; and unemployment has just taken another big tumble – overall it is now 380,000 lower than its peak at the very end of 1992.

    They are very encouraging statistics and the whole range of them suggests that this is a broadly-based recovery that is set to last. Of course, not every statistic on every occasion is going to be a good one, that is not the way the real world works, but the overall direction is perfectly clear: Britain is securely on course for long-term economic recovery based on sustainable growth, low inflation and sound public finances and we are determined to keep it that way.

    Almost every previous economic recovery we have seen has been wrecked by overheating. We have seen it time and time again. Frustratingly, when things start to go right, they suddenly go too right too quickly and we have headed off into difficulties yet again.

    Let me say this to you quite bluntly: I am determined not to allow this recovery to be endangered in this way. We are going to take no risks whatsoever with inflation. The British public and believe British business as well require stability and predictability in their household budgets, their mortgage repayments, investment decisions and in their export pricing and it is only when they have confidence in that that they will be able to take decisions with confidence for the future and that is what we seek to instil both in the short- and the long-term and that was the reason last week that we moved to raise interest rates by one half-point. The British people and British business need to know that where the Government is concerned short-termism is not going to be an option. We are playing for the long term, long-term prosperity, long-term jobs and long-term growth.

    The current recovery – and this is a very welcome development – marked by a very strong performance by our exporters and I think this is one of the reasons why observers see this recovery as being different in kind from any that we have seen before and the Government will do whatever it can, whatever it needs to do, to ensure that this continues and to provide the conditions that will enable British enterprise to go out and beat the competition and continue to beat the competition in markets all around the world.

    That was what lay behind the Competitiveness White Paper some time ago; it is why exports play such an important part in it; it is why we will continue to look right across the range of Government activity from the more obvious areas of competitiveness to supply-side changes in education and elsewhere to ensure the long-term competitiveness of British industry in the future; it is why I brought with me on this occasion a very strong team of business leaders – we want to help them utilise the opportunities in major export markets that await an economically resurgent Britain. I am more confident that they will be able to take those opportunities than I have been for very many years and our job as Government is to try and ensure that we maintain the right economic framework, the right levels of confidence, to enable our businessmen and our industry to go out and sell the best of British in every corner of the world. I believe they will do their job providing we do ours and we are determined to do so.

    That very briefly is the view from London. It is an optimistic view but it is also the view I hear from foreign observers of the British scene, that rarely have they seen such a favourable combination of economic ingredients. I hope, therefore, that people will begin to build up the confidence that is necessary for them to go out and take advantages of the circumstances that are coming together – I am sure that they will.

  • PMQT – 22 June 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd June 1993. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Orme : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 June.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been attending a European Council meeting in Copenhagen.

    Mr. Orme : Will the Leader of the House explain why many people on invalidity benefit who have been assisting the very sick, poor and disabled and withdrawing from that voluntary work because of the fear that the Government will attack their benefits? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most vulnerable in our society should not be made to pay for the failure of the Government’s economic policy?

    Mr. Newton : I know of no basis for the fear that the right hon. Gentleman describes. When I was Secretary of State for Social Security we went to some lengths to try to prevent that difficulty arising and we improved the therapeutic earnings rule, with which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Social Security will be concerned to ensure that people on invalidity benefit who can do voluntary work while nevertheless fulfilling the legal requirements of the benefit are able and encouraged to do so.

    Mr. Butcher : Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate my constituents and all employees of the Jaguar car company, in particular the highly skilled development engineers who so out-performed their foreign counterparts that they won the Le Mans 24-hour race? Will my right hon. Friend go further and tell people at large that there has been an improvement out of all recognition at Rover, Jaguar and all the other British car assemblers, and that there is now little excuse for buying a foreign car?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with all my hon. Friend’s points and I join him in paying tribute to Jaguar’s achievement and the achievement of many other British car manufacturers in recent months in bringing about the large increase in car production which, had it gone the other way, we would have been hearing much about from the Opposition ; we hear nothing when it goes up. With the British car market now growing, while continental markets are plunging into recession, our industry has revitalised itself and is set to win.

    Mr. John Smith : In view of the increasing and widespread public concern about large financial donations– [Interruption.] –about large financial donations from foreign sources to the Conservative party, will the Government now introduce legislation to make such foreign donations illegal?

    Mr. Newton : On the assumption that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is riding on the back of the absurd story in The Guardian today, perhaps I should tell him that, within the past hour or so, the Saudi ambassador to the United States of America, whose name was mentioned in that story, has issued a statement to the effect that all the allegations in the article are untrue and totally without foundation, that the meeting that is referred to did not take place, and that neither he nor anyone else connected with the Saudi Arabian Government has made donations to the Conservative party or been asked for such donations. Indeed, he is taking legal advice about obtaining a full retraction. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Leader of the House understand that the Conservative party’s difficulties arise because the party will not declare the sums that it receives from other people? As we are seeing what money the Conservative party has received, may I take this opportunity to ask whether it received funds from Mr. John Latsis and Mr. Li Ka-Shing?

    Mr. Newton : In the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s immortal words, he has put something else aside, as I understand it. [Interruption.] Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what I shall do : I shall start listening to his lectures on this subject when he tells me that he will bring to an end the position in the Labour party in which votes at party conferences can be bought, in which votes in the selection of candidates can be bought, and in which votes even in his election as leader of the party can be bought. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House is in a very bad mood. [Interruption.] Order–all of you.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Leader of the House understand– [Interruption.] I know that the Conservative party wants to drown this issue out, but it will not succeed. Does not the Leader of the House understand that the public will have noticed that there has been no denial that Mr. John Latsis, Greek millionaire and supporter of the fascist military junta in Greece, gave money to the Conservative party? Does not he understand the simple and clear principle that it is wrong, and should be illegal, for a British political party to accept large sums of money from people who are not British citizens, do not live here, do not vote here, and are not part of our democracy? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman understand that simple point?

    Mr. Newton : What I understand– [Hon. Members :– “Answer.”] –and believe– [Interruption.] –to be a scandal is that a major financer of the Labour party can utter phrases like “No say, no pay.” [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I expect better behaviour, especially from the Front Benches.

    Mr. Newton : The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s dealings with the trade unions makes “Jurassic Park” look like a tea party.

    Mrs. Browning : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, with the coming of the summer solstice, the west country is bracing itself for an invasion of new age travellers? Will he ensure that the Conservative party puts on the statute book whatever measures are necessary to ensure that those who opt for an alternative life style do so at their own expense, and not at the expense of the hard-working taxpayer?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend will know of the plans that the Government have set out, and of our determination to implement them. She may be relieved to note that, at present, most of the new age travellers seem to be on the Opposition Benches.

    Madam Speaker : Mr. Seamus Mallon. [Interruption.] If the House were a little quieter, hon. Members could hear when I called them.

    Mr. Mallon : Notwithstanding the importance of Volvo cars and inscribed watches, does the Leader of the House agree that the real moral test of any Government is their care for those in the dawn of life–the young ; those in the twilight of life–the aged ; and those in the shadows of life–the sick, the poor and the handicapped? Given the Government’s predeliction for testing, would the right hon. Gentleman care to subject them to that test? Does he believe that it will show the abysmal failure that most people in the country perceive?

    Mr. Newton : Given the improvements that have been made in the health service, in benefits for disabled people and in educational opportunities for young people, I think that the hon. Gentleman has a nerve to ask that question.

    Mr. Pickles : Has my right hon. Friend’s busy schedule allowed him an opportunity to consider the announcement

    Mr. Skinner : The Leader of the House is on crack. Get another bed ready.

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Pickles : Thank you, Madam Speaker.

    Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary’s recent announcement about trials of a side-handled baton for police officers? Does he agree that if the trials are successful, those who daily risk their lives on our streets will deserve our support? If the equipment proves good for the police, will the Government supply it?

    Mr. Newton : I agree very strongly. As has been all too evident on some recent occasions, we ask our police to risk their lives for us every day, and they deserve the protection with which we can provide them. There is no doubt that the standard truncheon does not meet all the needs of modern times, and it is well known to us that police officers have been pressing for more effective alternatives. I know that they, like my hon. Friend, will welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s announcement that a scientific evaluation of the expandable side-handled baton will be undertaken to test its suitability for trials on the streets.

     

    Q2. Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Vaz : During his busy day, has the Lord President of the Council had an opportunity to purchase an early retirement present for the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates)? [Interruption.] If so, will he reveal the words that he has had inscribed on the back of it ?

    Mr. Newton : I am afraid that, because of the noise–I am not sure from which side of the House it came–I did not hear the latter part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. Given the reaction, however, I doubt whether I need bother to ask him to repeat it. As for the first part, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his views on the matter clear some weeks ago, and I see no reason to depart from them this afternoon.

    Mr. Duncan Smith : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the successful management buy-out at Leyland DAF demonstrates that the Government–and, in particular, our right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade–were quite right to back a private solution to what was a problem ? Does it not also illustrate good, common-sense Conservative policies, as opposed to socialist dogma ?

    Mr. Newton : Yes. The management buy-outs, first of the vans business in Birmingham and now of the truck business at Leyland, are very good news. They show what can be achieved by working for sound commercial solutions, rather than the preferred solution of Labour Members–offering open-ended subsidies. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House, whatever their political views, wish the management buy-out people well for the future success of those companies.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jim Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 22 June.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Marshall : I half expected to receive a note this morning from the Leader of the House saying that he would link questions 2 and 3. I assume that before he did that, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) would also have to be in the frame.

    Will the Leader of the House accept that although all hon. Members welcome the recent reduction in the unemployment figures, that should not hide from us the very high figures associated with structural unemployment in this country? Does he further agree that that high level of structural unemployment represents — [Hon. Members :– “Give way.”]– represents a reservoir of economic resources that this country should be using? If he does agree– [Hon. Members :– “Too long.”] If he does agree, will he accept that the Government should be introducing an economic and industrial strategy to create jobs, not instigating a further attack on the residual welfare state?

    Mr. Newton : May I observe in passing that I am not aware of any practice of linking questions simply because the hon. Members asking them come from different bits of the same city?

    Somewhat to my surprise, I found myself agreeing with much of what the hon. Gentleman started with, although not with his conclusions. The Government’s view is that the right way forward to tackle that important problem is to put in place the proper training schemes, which we believe we have done, and to create the conditions in which British industry can compete and sell its goods, as we manifestly have with the motor industry, which is very important in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the country.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Focus on Scotland Dinner – 29 January 1993

    Below are lengthened extracts from Mr Major’s speech to the Focus on Scotland Dinner at the Hotel Forte Crest, Bothwell Street, in Glasgow on Friday 29th January 1993. This text is from the Conservative Party press release issued on the same day.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    During the last week, I have been looking to the future – looking for trade, looking for exports. Looking for prosperity. Looking for jobs.

    That was why I took with me to India the most prestigious group of businessmen ever to accompany a British Prime Minister abroad. While we were there significant contracts were signed – a £100 million supply contract for British Gas; and a £140 million power transmission contract for GEC Alsthom. Even more important, we opened up export opportunities for the future. We established a new rapport with the Indian Government and the Indian business community that will bear rich fruit in trade, investment and jobs.

    After India – Oman and Saudi Arabia. And with them, orders for 36 Challenger Tanks for Oman and 48 Tornado Aircraft for Saudi.

    A huge boost for British industry – a huge boost for British jobs, some of them here in Scotland. One reason why I am so pleased to procure this Tornado order is that it will bridge the gap between the Tornado and European Fighter Aircraft – thus keeping together the army of skilled workers who service industry so well. It’s vital that we preserve these precious national skills.

    Whenever I come home there’s always one thing that strikes me: we really do have a genius for running ourselves down. It baffles our friends abroad. They see that in recent years we have achieved much. They see our strengths. A stable political system. A tolerant and open society. A rich heritage that gives us stability and continuity. They see a country which has great opportunities. And so do I. It’s time to start selling Britain abroad. And stop selling Britain short.

    Over the past two years, we have brought inflation down from nearly 11 per cent to under three per cent – well below the European average. And, with this week’s interest rate cut, we have brought base rates down from 15 per cent to only six per cent. It’s now cheaper for business to borrow and invest in Britain than it is anywhere else in the Community – and cheaper than it’s been here for 15 years.

    So we have a great opportunity to invest for our future. A chance to succeed at home – and abroad. The Single Market is open for business – and I know Scottish business will be in there, responding to the challenge. But we must look beyond Europe as well.

    The US market is expanding again – and the rise in the dollar has given us a new competitive advantage. In the Far East, and in all other key markets, we can succeed. In just the final three months of last year, our exports of manufactured goods rose five per cent, in real terms. We must build on that success. Manufacturing is not an optional add-on extra. It is a vital part of our economy.

    The 1990s will be the most competitive decade business has ever seen. There will be no prizes for coming second. No prizes for old technology. No prizes for poor training. Either we invest and thrive, or we stagnate and simply survive. The circumstances are right. And the need is obvious. We need merchant venturers, not merchants of gloom. The time has never been better. And the rewards have never been greater.

    The Government will help. The Chancellor’s Autumn Statement signalled our approach. In public spending, he protected the capital projects so vital to our economic future, and opened the way to joint public and private schemes to improve our roads and railways and the rest of our infrastructure. He gave extra encouragement to private investment; and abolished car tax which had hung like a millstone round the neck of one of our greatest manufacturing industries.

    We will continue to listen to industry – and respond. But – as I know industry would expect – we will do nothing to compromise our firm commitment to low inflation and control of public spending. These are the foundations of lasting growth; sustainable growth; growth that creates secure jobs, and will have a real and lasting impact on unemployment.

    Others recognise the virtues of Britain. That’s why we continue to attract more inward investment than any other country in Europe. Here in Scotland, there has been good news just this week. Motorola has announced that it is continuing to expand, creating up to 600 new jobs and bringing total investment up to £100 million. And Hoover have chosen to move from Dijon to Cambuslang, bringing an extra 450 jobs with them.

    It’s not surprising that people want to come to the UK. Our productivity has been rising fast – and industrial relations have been transformed. The number of days lost from strikes has dropped to record low levels. We’ve abolished the closed shop. We’ve outlawed secondary action. We’ve given the unions back to their members. And now, in Parliament, we’re strengthening rules on strike ballots and giving rights of challenge against unlawful strikes.

    But we can do more to help industry. We must cut a swathe through the jungle of regulation that stops people starting businesses – and stops businesses growing and creating new jobs. I have asked every Whitehall department to turn out its cupboards and throw out the fussy rules and restrictions that serve no purpose but to hold British business back.

    Next week Ministers will be joining me in No 10 for a bout of spring-cleaning. Whitehall too easily throws its weight about. We need to redress the balance in favour of enterprise. And we will.

    This year, too, we must press ahead with a revolution in education and training. It is good news that the latest CBI survey showed that Scottish manufacturers are planning to increase spending on training and re-training this year. We need those new vocational qualifications, new high-quality courses for young people that will spread the skills we need for the future. And we need to work together to break down the barriers and old divisions in the workplace, and in schools and colleges. We need to tackle the old prejudices against manufacturing and engineering that have hampered our performance ever since the time of the Industrial Revolution.

    That is the way to prepare Britain for a prosperous future. I am confident that you will succeed. Because Scotland has always been outward looking, Scottish businesses understand better than many others the opportunities offered by the EC Single Market. After 300 years of union with a bigger neighbour, Scotland knows it is possible to benefit from a larger association without losing its distinctive identity. And Scottish businesses recognise that the Union has been the foundation stone of Scottish prosperity. No-one knows better than you what damage separation would do to your prospects.

    I think you know where I stand on the Union. Some things in politics are non-negotiable. And for me the maintenance of the Union is one of them. I believe it is vital for both our countries. That’s why I put it bang at the heart of our election campaign – in Scotland and in England.

    Last April we succeeded in turning the separatist tide. We turned it further in the May Local Elections and in the months ahead we will turn it further still.

    The Union has always challenged insularity and inward looking nationalism. The Scottish men and women who brought the Union alive knew no frontiers to their ideas: Livingstone, Telford, Watt, Bell, Robert Louis Stevenson, James Clerk Maxwell, Hume, Lister, Baird – explorers, scientists, industrialists, writers. They combined the Scottish spirit of radical enquiry with that Scottish capacity for hard work, to become truly international figures. They are part of Scotland’s greatness and they rose on Britain’s greatness. They typify the spirit of the Union. Their achievements are a powerful source of national pride. Together the countries of the UK have shaped world history. Together we have always looked beyond our frontiers and have played our part right at the centre of the world stage. But even after 300 years in which we have shared our culture, shared our experiences and shared our interests, we still remain distinctive nations with our own culture and traditions.

    I believe that our defence of the Union during the Election stirred feelings and memories that we had left untouched for too long. Labour ended up looking shoddy, unprincipled and opportunist. They deserved to. That’s what they were. The credibility of their scheme was revealed for what it really was: a recipe for bitter conflict, enormous cost and ultimately, separation. The Labour Party should know that for so long as they put forward policies for short-term political gain that would lead to the division of England from Scotland, one Party will always stand in their way. The Conservative and Unionist party. And that is where we should be.

    From time to time in our history there have of course been strains. Separatism has fed on these strains ever since the Act of Union was signed. Distance from London has led some rightly or wrongly to feel a sense of isolation and neglect. And at times, let’s face it, both Scotland and England have been clumsy in their dealings with each other.

    I said during the Election that we would recognise and address these concerns. I said we would take stock of the way the Union works and Scotland’s place within it. We will be announcing our conclusions shortly. I will not pre-empt them tonight but I will give a few of our preliminary impressions.

    I do not believe there is a widespread desire for total separation or dramatic constitutional upheaval. Most Scots, like most English people – recognise the benefits of the Union. Economic benefits, cultural benefits, and the benefit too of being part of an influential voice in world affairs.

    But I do accept that there is a widespread feeling that Government is too remote. A feeling that it does not properly recognise Scotland’s status as a nation or provide enough opportunities for the Scottish voice to be heard. We will address these concerns.

    Scotland has its own institutions – its legal system, its churches, its universities, its financial institutions and learned societies. It has its own priorities and we, the Government of the United Kingdom, should respond to them because that is what the Union is all about.

    How do we do this?

    First we must build on the many distinctively Scottish institutions which give a focus to the political identity of Scotland. We need to make the institutions of government more visible and accountable. The Scottish Office is Scotland’s department in Government with responsibilities right across the field of domestic policy. The Secretary of State for Scotland sits on all the vital Cabinet Committees and he is never hesitant in putting the Scottish view. So we will be looking to build on this role and build up the status of the Scottish Office.

    It is vital also that Scottish people feel their interests are properly represented in Parliament at Westminster and in the Scottish Grand Committee. We took an important step in re-establishing the Scottish Affairs Select Committee whose job it is to scrutinise the work and policies of the Scottish Office and to explore key areas of particular Scottish interest.

    Our reforms to local government in Scotland are also central to the taking stock exercise. A new single tier of local authorities will enable local councillors to promote more effectively the interests of the people they represent and will help to reduce the sense of remoteness that some have felt in the past.

    But self determination is not just a matter of where decisions are taken in government or local government. It is about giving people more power over their own lives; devolving choice from government to individuals.

    We want to widen choice and give more power to the user of public services – patients, passengers and parents. If the trains are always dirty and late, or if you are fobbed off again and again by the bureaucrat behind the desk, you should be able to do something about it. Insist on better quality and insist on being treated with courtesy, openness and respect. You should be able to insist on redress or at least a full explanation when standards are not met.

    That is why we are increasing parent power in schools. Parent power has, if anything, even greater potential in Scotland than in England. Here, education enjoys a status that is the envy of schools elsewhere. Parent power in Scotland gives people the power to raise standards still further and develop Scottish schools along Scottish lines.

    The NHS trust revolution and the extension of GP fund holding in Scotland is bringing health services closer to Scottish patients. Two hospital trusts are already up and running. Fifteen more have been approved to start this year and there are 20 further applications in the pipeline – representing 90 per cent of the hospital and community budget in Scotland.

    Scotland pioneered the Rents to Mortgages Scheme – widening choice for tenants. I think back to all those years ago when we introduced the Right to Buy in Scotland – I remember being told that it wouldn’t take off in Scotland. Ownership wasn’t part of Scottish culture, they said. What patronising nonsense. Since 1979 home ownership in Scotland has risen from 35 per cent to 52 per cent. It remains our objective to encourage a home and share-owning democracy in Scotland. It is above all ownership that gives opportunity and choice and a share in the nation’s wealth. And it is what the majority of people in Scotland aspire to just as much as in England.

    The qualities that have made Scotland a great nation are qualities that lie right at the heart of Conservative thinking. Individualism, a strong sense of social responsibility, radicalism, a belief in high standards in education and throughout public services, a deep sense of history and patriotic pride, a desire for greater choice and ownership and wealth.

    Ian Lang has spoken of “bringing the Union alive”. Our task is to demonstrate, as we work together in the Union to bring economic recovery, that the UK Government is a Government for all the United Kingdom, for Scotland as well as for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We need to build a firm constitutional base that meets the needs of Scottish people to be heard and to participate in the democratic process. We must bring the Union alive for the future of a prosperous Scotland in a United Kingdom and in Europe.

    We have a full and radical programme for this Parliament, to the next Election and beyond. And we have a strong message: a message of choice and opportunity, wealth, ownership and social responsibility. The tide of ideas is still with us. It is our agenda that will signpost the way to the millennium. Our plans for our people will determine the future of our country. We need to take that message to every town, every village, every street and every home.

    That is why we won the last Election. Not because we believed the opinion polls – they were wrong – or because we listened to the Westminster pundits – they are often wrong. But because we won the battle of ideas on the doorstep. That is the key to our success. And with your help I’m confident that when the next challenge comes, it will once again unlock the door to the next Conservative Government.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Saudi Arabia Visit – 29 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on his Saudi Arabia visit, held during an interview on board a flight back to London on Friday 29th January 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked about the important of the Saudi Arabia deal].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Saudi Arabia deal is very important of course, it secures 19,000 jobs and is part of a continuing relationship we have had with the Saudis for many years, a very good relationship.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the poor trade figures].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What is going to improve the trade figures? What will improve the trade figures is the fact that British industry is competitive, that British industry is exporting, and everywhere that I have been on this trip, whether it was in India, whether it was in Oman, whether it was in Saudi Arabia, they had several clear cut messages, British industry is now hugely competitive, British businessmen have now realised they do not sell their goods by sitting in the United Kingdom, they go abroad and display their wares. There is a tremendous opportunity and if we are going to take that opportunity, the lowest interest rates in Europe, a very low inflation rate, a hugely competitive exchange rate, businessmen with the assistance of government have got to go and sell the best of British abroad, that is what I have been doing, it is what I will go on doing and it is what I want British business to do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he intended on going on more similar trips in the future].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, there will be more of these trips, there will be many trips of course that will be purely political or diplomatic, but of course, where appropriate I will take businessmen with me.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 January 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th January 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lithuania and Latvia

    Mr. Alex Carlile : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make direct representations to the President of the Soviet Union concerning recent actions by the Soviet Government in Lithuania and Latvia; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : We have made our concerns known very clearly to the Soviet authorities, both bilaterally and in conjunction with partners and allies. There should be no doubt of our condemnation of the actions of Soviet troops in Vilnius and Riga and their tragic consequences. We call urgently on the Soviet authorities to withdraw their troops and to negotiate seriously with the elected authorities in the Baltic states.

    Lobby Reporters

    Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if he will change the terms under which parliamentary lobby reporters are briefed by his press secretary so that information may be attributed to the Prime Minister’s office in place of Government sources.

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

    Saudi Arabia (Mail)

    Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to ensure that mail can be got through to United Kingdom civilians working in Saudi Arabia from their families, using military postal facilities if necessary and where possible.

    The Prime Minister : In spite of delays caused by difficulties with air services, the Post Office is making every effort to operate the best possible service to Saudi Arabia and mail is getting through. The Ministry of Defence would be willing to consider what help it could provide, if this becomes necessary.

    Royal Prerogative

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will bring forward proposals to institute a system for notifying (a) Parliament and (b) the electorate when the royal prerogative has been exercised; (2) if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to ensure that the authority of Parliament is required for (a) the declaration or continuation of war and (b) other exercises of the royal prerogative; (3) if he will bring forward legislative proposals to introduce ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the powers currently exercised by the royal prerogative.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 January 1991] : No.

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements exist for the Prime Minister to be notified when the royal prerogative is used.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 January 1991] : With very few exceptions, the royal prerogative comprises powers that are now exercised by Ministers subject to the constitutional conventions.

    Declaration of War

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what would be the effects of an official declaration of war on the maintenance of an Iraqi diplomatic capability in the United Kingdom;

    (2) whether the United Kingdom is at war with Iraq;

    (3) what representations he has received concerning parliamentary consideration of the declaration of war.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 25 January 1991] : The United Kingdom is not in a state of war with Iraq. British forces are engaged, together with the armed forces of Kuwait and other coalition partners, in hostilities against Iraq under the authority of the United Nations Security Council. The rules of international law applying in cases of armed conflict apply to these hostilities, notably the Geneva protocol of 1925 and the four Geneva conventions of 1949. We will observe our obligations under those treaties scrupulously and expect the Government of Iraq to do the same.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Eastern Saudi Arabia – 8 January 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press statement and questions and answers, held in the desert in Eastern Saudi Arabia on Tuesday 8th January 1991.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say, amongst the principal reasons I came here was to have a look for myself and to satisfy myself what the conditions were, what the equipment was like, and to actually see conditions on the ground and both talk to our Commanders and to as many of the men as possible who are actually out here at the present time. I have found it thus far an extremely useful and worthwhile exercise and I am extremely pleased I came.

    As you know, yesterday I had talks with the Emir of Kuwait, last evening I had a lengthy discussion with King Fahd of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and they were both extremely useful and worthwhile occasions.

    There seems to me to be no doubt in anyone’s mind amongst the allies precisely why we are here or what it may be necessary to do. We still hope very much indeed that there is the possibility of a peaceful conclusion to this matter, that is our preferred outcome, we hope that that may yet emerge from the discussions which Mr Baker will have with Tariq Aziz later this week.

    But what is entirely clear is that if a peaceful settlement is not possible that can only be because Saddam Hussein does not obey the Security Council Resolutions and if he does not those resolutions are quite clear and if he enters into a conflict that is a conflict of course that he cannot possibly win.

    In my discussions thus far I have concentrated not only on the immediate problems that we face in front of us in terms of the invasion and occupation of Kuwait, but also on the security matters that will need to be considered after this matter is over in whatever way it happens to be concluded. These are very much preliminary discussions in terms of future security arrangements, but it seemed to me it was important to consider those now and this has provided a very useful and worthwhile opportunity to do so.

    You will know that insofar as the troops are concerned we have now issued respirators, indeed I suspect all of you are carrying them as well, we have done that because of the nature of weapons that we know that Iraq have, and against the possibility that they would actually seek to use those weapons we will certainly seek to ensure that the troops have whatever equipment they may need to ensure their security and safety and to do the job that they have been sent here to do.

    So I think those are the general introductory remarks that I would wish to make to you and I will endeavour to answer any questions you may have.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Alex Thompson, Channel 4 News):
    Many people perhaps are a little confused, they say that there have been many instances of countries being invaded by other aggressor nations and Britain has not sent troops to those situations. Can you explain to the British people what it is that makes the Kuwait situation different?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are a variety of things that make the Kuwait situation particularly important and indeed I took the opportunity of saying that to those troops I had the opportunity of speaking to this morning. Firstly, the nature of the invasion of Kuwait, entirely unprovoked, by a large aggressor against a small defenceless country was in itself objectionable and unacceptable. Secondly, what has actually happened in Kuwait and continues to happen in Kuwait daily in terms of the treatment of the inhabitants of Kuwait has been very carefully documented not least by the Amnesty International Report, that is a chilling report and that too is entirely unacceptable and needs to be reversed.

    But beyond that I think there are some wider issues as well. If on this occasion, when the whole of the world is actually combined against Saddam Hussein as an aggressor, the aggressor were to get away with it, how many other small defenceless countries elsewhere around the world with an aggressive neighbour might face a similar problem in the future? I think the sheer force of world opinion requires that we do not let Saddam Hussein get away with it, not just to free Kuwait – important and vital though that is – but also to send a lesson to other people that this is not a way they can behave.

    The wider point of course if I can add it as well is the difficulties there may be if this matter were not to be resolved satisfactorily now, we may have a much bigger problem on our hands in two or three years time. So I think for those and other reasons that I could expand upon if you invited me to, there are a raft of good reasons why the international community has acted as it has done. And if I may add this final point, it has done so with a wholly remarkable consistency of purpose, as you have seen in the Security Council Resolutions.

    QUESTION (Peter Sale, Reuters):

    Could you describe to us your ideas for a regional security network or how you see a regional security network evolving after the current Gulf crisis, do you see a permanent Western presence in that and if so how will you deal with Iran’s current objections to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not think that is by any means the only way in which the matter can be dealt with. But the purpose of raising it privately with the Arab leaders at the moment is to begin to appreciate the sensitivities that are involved as well as the logistical problems that are involved so that we may be better informed when these discussions begin in earnest at a later stage. I think there are a variety of options that one may consider when one looks at a security pattern for the region as a whole, but if you will forgive me, I will not speculate on those at the moment.

    QUESTION (Alistair Campbell, Daily Mirror):

    Have the military asked you for anything specifically, can you tell us what it is and are you likely to give it to them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No they have not asked me for anything specifically but I have found out a great deal that has been useful and interesting that I shall follow up back in London.

    QUESTION (Charles Richards, Independent):

    You said that the invasion of Kuwait was unforgivable, does that mean that even if Saddam Hussein does withdraw from Kuwait he will have to be punished in some way?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have made it perfectly clear, and I am happy to reiterate it, that if he stays in Kuwait he will be expelled, but if he withdraws to Iraq he will not be attacked within Iraq. We have made that clear and so have the other members of the Allied Forces and I am happy to reiterate that.

    QUESTION (UPI):

    You told the troops that the purpose of the Baker meeting with Tang Aziz is not to negotiate and not to do any deals. You sound almost as warlike as Dan Quayle did last week, is there any room for him to get out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We want him to get out, that is entirely right, that is exactly what we want him to do. But if Saddam Hussein is concerned about the deadline, as we now hear yesterday he may be, then he has it within his own hands, he can start moving out straight away, he should never have moved in and he should move out.

    But if you have in mind that a partial withdrawal or something of that sort would be acceptable, then I must say to you I do not believe it is acceptable. Firstly because if somebody ransacks and burgles your house I doubt that you would find it acceptable if he maintained control of half of it. But secondly because the wider principle is this; if he does gain anything from this aggression, despite the opposition, the universal opposition to him, then other people may feel they could act in the same way elsewhere and likewise gain something from it. And I think given the increased force of the United Nations and the unprecedented nature of world opinion, we cannot permit him to do that when we have an opportunity to make clear to everyone that this is unacceptable behaviour and the international community will not accept it.

    QUESTION:

    Just to follow up, you do not seem to leave any option except for war after 15 January if he does not go out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He knows very well what the Security Council Resolutions say and what I have been saying is a reaffirmation of the Security Council Resolutions that have such unprecedented force. Saddam Hussein should read those resolutions and he should understand that we are serious about enforcing them.

    BEN BROWN (BBC TV NEWS):

    Can you say something about the mood of the men you met today, the morale, and whether you heard any complaints or criticisms from them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I had quite an opportunity both to talk to them but more importantly than that, to listen to them. You saw the mood of the men; you saw what good heart they were in; you saw what the morale was – I must say it is very remarkable indeed, both amongst those who have been here for some time and also those who have just arrived and I met a lot of young troops from Lancashire who have arrived here just in the last month or so and their morale was very high indeed. I asked them what conditions were like here; I must say, I did not pick up a lot of complaints; I picked up some suggestions and I will take those suggestions back and discuss them in London.

    BEN BROWN:

    Can you tell us what suggestions they were?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will discuss those first in London and then discuss them with Tom King.

    QUESTION:

    Can you give a hint – food?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no! The food was fine. Food, they said, is fine depending upon the cook! It seemed to me from all I heard that it was a good deal better than the House of Commons!

    TREVOR KAVANAGH (THE SUN):

    Was one of the complaints the lack of information, newspapers, access to radio? This was the complaint made to us.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, nobody has made that complaint at all. There was certainly some comment from the troops but this was a very favourable comment about the amount of equipment, newspapers and other matter that had been sent over the Christmas period not just by the Government but by lots of other people as well and there was a very considerable degree of pleasure at that, but I heard no complaints of the sort you envisage.

    ROBIN OAKLEY (THE TIMES):

    Can you confirm specifically that there will be no diminution in the degree of force to be used against Saddam Hussein if there is a partial withdrawal?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    A partial withdrawal is not acceptable and a partial withdrawal will have to be followed by expulsion until it becomes a full withdrawal. There is no compromise on that.

    QUESTION:

    Is it fair to say on that point that the partial withdrawal remains the one greatest problem you have as you have toured around this region – that is the one conundrum which you find it most difficult to solve?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know that it is a conundrum and it would be solved in the manner I have just described. We do not know whether that will occur or not. I hope that the message has finally got through to the Iraqis, the two messages, really, that are critical:

    Firstly, that the Allies are serious; and secondly, that the Iraqis cannot win. Providing those two messages have gone home, as I hope they have, then I think we must look to Saddam Hussein to withdraw wholly. In those circumstances, there is no point on his behalf in a partial withdrawal and I must absolutely reiterate there is no point in him trying for a partial withdrawal because we shall enforce it until it is a full withdrawal.

    QUESTION (ARAB DAILY NEWSPAPER):

    Saddam Hussein is asking for a solution to the Middle East problem if you are looking for a solution to the Gulf crisis. What are your comments on that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We shall be looking at the wider Middle East thereafter, as indeed we were before and we have made that perfectly clear. A solution to the wider Middle East problem is being held up by this particular side event at the moment, by this particular invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. The wider problems of the Middle East will continue to be addressed as soon as this is over – they are very important.

    SAME MAN:

    After the withdrawal?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    After the withdrawal.

    MALCOLM CARMICHAEL (AGENCE FRANCE PRESS):

    In describing the reasons why the British and other troops are here, you omitted to mention the strategic value of the region and I was wondering why?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I could have added another five or six reasons why they were here but I set out the reasons that actually brought people here after the invasion and I think they are very important reasons and they were the underlying reasons why the Security Council Resolutions got such support.

    RICHARD WILLING (DETROIT NEWS):

    Mr. Prime Minister, if Saddam Hussein does not withdraw his troops from Kuwait by 15 January, should the nation and people of Iraq consider themselves targets of the Allied Forces or will the force be restricted to the area that you identified today as wanting delivery, i.e. Kuwait?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to speculate on what may happen after the 15th if Saddam Hussein does not withdraw; I do not think that would be fair to our troops, I do not think it would be fair to anybody else and I do not propose to do it. I am not going to comment.

    RICK SALENGER (CNN LONDON BUREAU):

    Prime Minister, after talking to the troops today, have you come across with a feeling similar to what we have received from them that they want to get the job done now and go home, that that would be preferable than waiting perhaps even longer for some peace negotiations to succeed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I did not especially get that feeling but then I suppose everybody would pick up their own vibes from those they speak to. But certainly, that was not especially a feeling that I got.

    I did get a feeling of very considerable resolution amongst the troops I met; they know what they are here for; they know what they may have to do; they are extremely professional, extremely well-trained and they are prepared to do it if necessary

    MIGUEL MORENO (CATALAN TV, SPAIN):

    Prime Minister, I want to know if Saddam Hussein is going to use chemical weapons you are agreed to use nuclear weapons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have plenty of weapons short of that and we have no plans of the sort you envisage and we hope it is perfectly clear to Saddam Hussein firstly that our men will be well-protected against chemical weapons – he would be very unwise to do that. I hope he will not do that; I hope he will actually have the sense to make a peaceful withdrawal but we have plenty of weapons short of those you mention.

    MIGUEL MORENO:

    I know you enjoy your holidays in Spain. I want to know what you think about Spanish collaboration, bringing some aeroplanes to the British Air Force.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I certainly enjoy my holidays in Candeleda and I hope to continue to do so and I am pleased to see the Spanish cooperation.

    ADAM BOULTON (SKY NEWS):

    Prime Minister, are you effectively saying in so many words that unless a real withdrawal starts by this time next week, there will be war?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The situation is perfectly clear, Adam. The situation is as set out in the Security Council Resolutions and I am underlining that precisely, absolutely and not going beyond that.