The statement made by Sir John Major following the death of Mikhail Gorbachev on 30 August 2022.
Mikhail Gorbachev was the most remarkable figure in post-war Russia, and was instrumental in bringing the Cold War to a close.
At the moment it was needed, he acted and spoke for peace, and stood on the right side of history.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech in Kuala Lumpur, made on Wednesday 22nd September 1993.
PRIME MINISTER:
Honourable Ministers, Distinguished. Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen. I am very grateful to the Minister of Finance, Anwar Ibrahim, for coming to this lunch today and for speaking and to so many of his Ministerial colleagues for accepting our invitation in what I know is a very busy Cabinet day for all of them,
Before turning to matters close at hand, bilateral matters, trading matters, I think I should say something about events in Russia over the last 24 hours. Anwar, you spoke a moment ago about the collapse of communism, and what happens in Russia affects all of us because Russia stretches from central Europe, across Asia to the Pacific, because as a Permanent Member of the Security Council, Russia is involved in all the most critical international problems, whether it is the Middle East, Bosnia or Cambodia,
The changes began in the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev and they were carried into a new phase by Boris Yeltsin as President of Russia. They were remarkable changes, they generated hope and expectation far beyond Russia’s boundaries.
But I do not think that we should be surprised that this immense transformation has proved erratic and difficult, it has demanded high courage from the reformers within Russia and steady nerves from their supporters on the outside.
I believe those of us outside need to keep a clear view of what we are supporting and why we are supporting it. The United Kingdom wants to see democracy securely founded in Russia under a democratic constitution providing for the rule of law and the rights of the individual. We believe that authoritarian communist rule in the Soviet Union was both morally wrong and hugely damaging, it wasted the resources of a rich and proud nation and ruined its economy over many generations.
In the referendum in April the people of Russia gave President Yeltsin a clear mandate to complete democratic reform. Under that mandate and of the first popularly elected President of Russia he has been seeking to bring in a new constitution. His political opponents, entrenched in a parliament elected under Soviet rule, have fought a rear guard action to block the people’s will and paralyse reform.
President Yeltsin now intends to call parliamentary elections in December, leading to the adoption by a new parliament of a new constitution. His opponents are evidently not prepared to put their credentials to the test. I believe passionately that the Russian people should have the right to decide themselves, I believe this will be a vital step to underpin reform. I believe they should be allowed to elect a genuinely democratic and representative parliament and that is why I believe President Yeltsin is right, that is why I believe he deserves all our continuing support, and it was for that reason that earlier today I sent him a message making it clear that he continues to have the full and unqualified support of the United Kingdom.
Russia, of course, is but one of the subjects I look forward to discussing with Dr Mahatir and his colleagues during the rest of this afternoon and this evening. We will have a busy agenda: developments in Asia; former Yugoslavia we shall certainly discuss; the Middle East; as well as the crucially important Uruguay Round negotiations. All of these matters are vital to all free democratic nations and will be the legitimate matter for our discussions this afternoon.
But at lunchtime today in the presence of so many Ministers with economic responsibilities, and of so many leading British and Malaysian figures from the business world, I want to turn particularly to our longstanding and growing economic partnership.
We share a belief, we British and Malaysians, a belief in free trade. We in Britain have worked for the completion within the European Community of the Single European Market. I think I can say without a shred of over-exaggeration that we in Britain are the leading free traders in Western Europe. We have worked assiduously for an outward looking, open and competitive European Community and we shall continue to do so.
And here in Malaysia you with your partners have been progressing towards the ASEAN free trade area. Each of our countries has benefited from business which has boosted two-way trade between us to over 1.5 billion pounds each and every year, and for British investment in Malaysia to around 2 billion pounds. Both countries have been pioneers of privatisation within their own continents. Malaysia has pursued, it is continuing to pursue, that ambitious and exciting privatisation programme and I know that you plan to go even further.
In Britain during the period of the last decade or so we have released 46 separate companies with a total value of 50 billion pounds into private ownership. Many of them in the public sector did not make profits and did not deliver much of a service, now they do make profits and they yield taxes towards the provision of communal services and I believe they deliver a far better service as well.
And so we are seeing the benefits of better management, better services and increased profitability. And I make that point because no less than 7 of the businessmen accompanying me here today are the heads of former nationalised, now private sector companies British Aerospace, British Gas, Cable and Wireless, the National Grid Company, North West Water, PowerGen, Rolls Royce all highly successful competitive companies with a rising international reputation.
North West Water, for example, took part in EPO in the world’s first water privatisation project.. The Rolls Royce industrial power group has completed the conversion of the Connaught Bridge Power Station which I had the pleasure and privilege of visiting this morning. And British Aerospace has been one of the companies helping to meet Malaysia’s need for defence equipment over many years. Other companies represented here today are equally effective. Bywater, with the Apamur [phon] Dam, has helped the national rural water supply scheme. I remember. Bywater, getting on for nearly a quarter of a century ago when I think I had the pleasure of agreeing almost one of the first banking loans they ever had, and if I had realised how good they would be and how they would have grown I would have agreed to that loan far more speedily and on far better terms than I did. Balfour Beatty and GEC have been building the Pergau Hydro Power Station and these two companies, with Trafalgar House and Gammon, are partners in the British/Japanese consortium on the new Kuala Lumpur international airport.
Those are remarkable projects and yet these projects are just a part of the successful modern, growing, relationship, a relationship that has flourished and continues to flower as year succeeds year.
But they are part also of something else as well, part also of a wider picture of dynamic economic growth in Asia, matched by a stronger political voice and widening influence in international affairs.
Britain’s links with Asia are very old, they go back over 4 centuries. But it is not over the past that I think we should dwell, and even necessarily entirely the present, what we need to do is to look to the future rather than to the past and as we do so we are determined to strengthen and deepen our involvement in your region, our relationship politically and our relationship economically as well.
I remarked yesterday on the pace of change in Malaysia in the 20 years or so since my first visit. I find it astonishing to contemplate the Malaysia I saw when I first came here in the 1970s and to see today the immense changes towards an industrial society that have been created during the period of those two decades, they are truly remarkable changes of which I believe Malaysia can be justly proud.
But Britain too has changed during that period, through our membership of the European Community we have widened our economic base. Many overseas companies, rightly, see the United Kingdom as the most convenient and effective centre for the whole of their European operations. We have restructured our industry, the City of London has adopted the most sophisticated techniques to remain in the forefront of the world’s financial centres, we have become both more cosmopolitan and more competitive. And as we emerge from the recession that has engulfed so much of the western industrial world and many areas beyond it, as we emerge from that we find ourselves perhaps better placed for increased competitiveness than we have found ourselves for almost two decades.
You will, I hope, here in Malaysia experience this competitiveness in your dealings with the companies represented here today, But I hope also that you will find that the values we respect are the same, and it is shared values, apart from shared interests in free trade, the shared values – integrity, a sense of responsibility, that basic underpinning of an attachment to democracy and the rule of law – those are elements of our twin relationship that have grown and continue to grow year upon year.
I believe those are the essence of the partnership, quite apart from the mutual business interests that we share, those are the essence of the partnership and friendship between Britain and Malaysia that have enabled it to grow out of a colonial past into a modern industrial partnership.
I am delighted therefore to be here today, I look forward to my discussions later today. I am delighted to have brought with me this remarkable delegation of senior businessmen, most of whom find already are by no means new to this market but are meeting many old friends with whom they have had a longstanding relationship. I wish them well in their bilateral discussions, I believe their mutual success is in the interests of Malaysia and in the interests of the United Kingdom and it is that mutual success and that mutual relationship that I hope for and that we must all work for, and I am delighted to have had the opportunity of being here today to express that thought to all of you.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on 3rd February 1992 on President Yeltsin and the UN Security Council.
PRIME MINISTER:
The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about President Yeltsin’s visit to London on 30 January and about the special meeting of the UN Security Council in New York on 31 January. I was accompanied to New York by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Both meetings came at an important time in Russia’s relationship with the rest of the world and at a critical time for world peace and stability. Russia has, in President Yeltsin’s own words, thrown off the shackles of communism. She remains a nuclear super-power. As such, and as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, she has world responsibilities. It is essential for our own peace and security that Russia continues to play the positive role on which President Gorbachev embarked and which President Yeltsin is set to continue and to develop. I believe that we should offer them our support in this.
I called the meeting in New York during our chairmanship of the Security Council so that the council could meet at the highest level to reaffirm and develop its commitment to peacekeeping and peacemaking. The timing was particularly apt following the appointment of a new Secretary-General and with Russia taking the seat in the Security Council formerly held by the Soviet Union. The meeting was successful, and I should like to highlight the key points.
This was the first time in the 47 years of its history that the UN had met at the top level. For the first time ever, the Heads of State and Government of the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain sat around the same table and pledged themselves, with the other members of the council, to collective security, to international law and to our commitments under the United Nations’ charter.
A statement was agreed by all the members of the Security Council. Copies are in the Library of the House. In it we reaffirmed that all disputes between states should be resolved peacefully in accordance with the provisions of the charter. We committed ourselves to the fight against terrorism. We asked the Secretary-General to make recommendations for a more effective role for the United Nations as peacekeeper and as peacemaker. Under article 99 of the charter, the Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which, in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. We hope the new Secretary-General will use those powers. He will report to us within six months with his recommendations. We committed ourselves to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation and to the conclusion of a chemical weapons convention this year. The council endorsed the idea put forward by the British Government, and recently endorsed by the General Assembly, of a UN register of conventional arms transfers. During his visit to London, President Yeltsin noted that Britain had been the first country to denounce the August coup, and the first to recognise Russia; the first to propose Russian membership of the International Monetary Fund; the first to propose an April deadline for that membership; and the first to support a stabilisation fund for the rouble.
It is essential that Russia join the IMF at the earliest opportunity, and I believe that a stabilisation fund may need to follow if Russia is to have a prospect of establishing a successful market economy. There is, of course, a financial cost in this, but the cost of failure and a return to dictatorship and the cold war would be infinitely higher. It is in our national interest and in the interests of the west as a whole to help Russia, and we shall continue to take a lead in doing so. I undertook to make it one of the priorities of our presidency of the European Community later this year to carry through an improved trade and co-operation agreement with Russia.
In our discussion of arms control issues, President Yeltsin committed Russia to further significant reductions in the Russian strategic and international arsenal. I told him that we had already committed ourselves to a cut of one half in our sub-strategic nuclear weapons and to smaller conventional forces. I told him also that Britain’s only strategic weapon would be the minimum deterrent constituted by Trident.
President Yeltsin accepted that Trident was indeed a minimum deterrent and that the focus of arms control negotiations should be on the arsenal of the two super-powers. We agreed to co-operate in handling surplus Soviet weapons and in safeguarding nuclear materials. I offered to send a technical mission to Moscow to assess the immediate needs at first hand. I have also offered to send a small number of officials from the Ministry of Defence to the Russian Ministry of Defence to advise on the restructuring and control and financing of armed forces in a democratic society. We discussed the problem of the possible leakage of expertise from Russia in the field of weapons of mass destruction. President Yeltsin has made proposals for handling this problem, and we have offered our help as part of an international effort. The President and I agreed to establish a secure telephone link between our two offices. This is not meant as a crisis hot-line ; it will enable us to conduct the significant amount of business we have to undertake.
We signed a joint declaration–the text of which is in the Library of the House–on relations between our two countries. It will form the basis of a treaty which the President and I hope to sign during the official visit to Britain which he will make later this year. It will be the first such treaty since 1766.
This is a time of great hope in international affairs, but also of uncertainty and potential instability. The two meetings on which I have reported to the House have shown our determination to work for a safer world and a new partnership with Russia in the cause of peace.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in New York, held on Friday 31st January 1992.
PRIME MINISTER:
We have had a very wide-ranging and satisfactory debate thus far in the Security Council. I set out this morning some of the key elements that I thought would be the substance of our discussion, the powers of the United Nations peace-making, peace-keeping, non-proliferation, disarmament, and they and others have indeed proved to be the substance of what we have been discussing thus far.
What is particularly noticeable I believe is the atmosphere in which the discussions have taken place. It is certainly within the memory of many of the people in the United Nations today when President Khrushchev was here banging his shoe on the table. We have seen a solid consensus that the United Nations needs strengthening and that we should set about that particular work speedily.
So thus far it has been a very satisfactory meeting and I look forward to our conclusion later on today.
QUESTION (John Sergeant):
You are going to announce restrictions on biological material this afternoon, can you tell us the extent of the problem and how those restrictions would work in practice?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is a domestic matter, that is a matter of UK legislation. We do have controls at present in the United Kingdom on items that can be exported that might be used for biological weapons. We propose to strengthen those and make them a matter for specific legislation and we will be setting out the full details of that shortly.
QUESTION:
Mr Yeltsin said that the success of the new world order you were discussing this morning depended in no small measure on the success of his reforms at home. What kind of things does he leave with to help believe that will occur?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think he came with something as well, he came with a permanent membership of the Security Council, he came with membership of the International Monetary Fund now firmly in view, he came in the belief that is being shown to be correct that there is widespread goodwill for assisting Russia throughout the world to ensure that their reforms are successful. I share his judgement, I think it is vitally important both for Russia and for everybody else that those reforms are successful and it is for that reason that the United Kingdom believes he should be given substantial help.
QUESTION:
[Indistinct] Shi’ite prisoners, what is your reaction to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have not seen those pictures yet, I am hoping to get a report on that later today and I will comment on it when I have had the report.
QUESTION:
What is your reaction to President Yeltsin’s call for [indistinct] security system?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think we have to examine precisely what that means and precisely how it would work. One of the features of the debate this morning is that a whole series of ideas have been produced, ideas in many cases that no-one was expecting. I think that is very refreshing and they are matters we will have to discuss in the future.
QUESTION:
Is there not some urgency in all of that because we shall not have the Secretary General’s report until July, the IMF probably until April, is there urgency there?
PRIME MINISTER:
I believe there is urgency. The idea for this particular meeting, the first time in 47 years we have had a meeting of the Security Council at Heads of Government level, that idea has been produced and acted upon very speedily, the response from the governments concerned has been very speedy, the Heads of Government have come. Now I believe that is an indication of the importance that people give to this meeting and taking the opportunities that exist at present to make this a safer world. That is why disarmament, non-proliferation and matters of this sort are the very substance of what is being discussed today.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on the visit of President Yeltsin, issued on Thursday 30th January 1992.
PRIME MINISTER:
President Yeltsin and I have had over four hours of talks, some of it in very restricted session, some with other Ministers.
My first contact with President Yeltsin was at the height of the August coup. Some of you may remember that I came out into Downing Street to report that conversation. Britain was the first country to denounce the coup. I wanted, on that day in August, to draw the world’s attention to the courage of President Yeltsin and his followers in the White House. They fought for their lives and for the future of democracy in their country.
It is a particular pleasure to welcome President Yeltsin today as President of Russia. Today we have made progress in building a new relationship between our two countries. We have always had shared interests. Now we have shared values as well. The shared values of democracy, a free economy and a commitment to peace and stability.
I was glad to have the opportunity today to welcome the arms control initiative taken by President Bush and President Yeltsin. I expressed our strong support for further moves towards deterrence at much lower levels, based on the most stable systems. I assured him of our intention to maintain only a minimum strategic deterrent force, threatening no one.
We have given a practical and important expression today to our new relationship. I will mention ten points.
1. We have signed a joint declaration this morning. This commits our two countries to a relationship of friendship as partners in the international community. It commits us to the peaceful settlement of disputes; to the control of weapons of mass destruction and to non-proliferation. We propose to turn this Declaration into a formal Treaty on the relations between our two countries in the near future.
2. Britain is determined to help democracy in Russia. It has already done a great deal to provide assistance to Russia and the new Commonwealth.
– Britain’s share of EC aid is £300 million;
– Know-how fund of £50 million already committed to over 50 projects (including improvement of bread distribution in Moscow);
– £20 million feed grain package to St. Petersburg;
– Medical assistance of £2 million;
– Financial sector training initiative: there will be places for 1,000 Russians with British financial, insurance and legal firms.
3. Britain was the first country to propose Russian membership of the IMF and to propose an April deadline for that membership. We will press for that.
4. We took the lead in negotiating a debt deferral agreement for Russia and the other republics. We have also taken a lead in the Group of 7 to urge further assistance for Russia, possibly in the form of a rouble stabilisation fund.
5. In the context of an IMF programme, I can announce today our readiness to make available in 1992 a total of £280 million in medium term export credit cover and investment insurance for Russia and the other Republics.
6. Britain will propose in the EC an improved trade and cooperation agreement with Russia. We will make this one of the priorities of our Presidency.
7. We have agreed to cooperate on handling surplus Soviet nuclear weapons and safeguarding nuclear materials and we will be sending a technical mission to Moscow to assess the immediate needs at first hand.
8. We have agreed to cooperate in other defence fields including the transformation required to ensure the restructuring, control and financing of armed forces in a democratic society. I have offered to second a small number of MOD officials to the Russian Ministry of Defence.
9. The President and I discussed the problem of expertise in the field of weapons of mass destruction and the President told me of the steps he is taking against the risks of proliferation. We will have further discussion about how best we can help the Russian Republic and other Republics to use the talents of their scientists in the cause of peaceful development.
10. President Yeltsin and I have agreed to establish a secure telephone link between his office and mine. I do not see this as a crisis hot line. It will reflect the growing number of shared issues and interests that we will wish to discuss.
I have invited President Yeltsin to pay an official visit to Britain later this year. I am delighted to say that he has accepted.
This afternoon we both fly to New York for a meeting of the Security Council which will demonstrate Russia’s role as a linchpin in the Council’s role as peacekeeper and peacemaker. The keynote of our meeting today has been friendship and partnership. I am sure that will also be a hallmark of tomorrow’s meeting of the Security Council.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s Joint Declaration with the Russian Federation, issued on 30th January 1992.
JOINT DECLARATION BY THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Russian Federation are opening a new page in their relations. They have left behind the period of the Cold War, do not threaten each other’s national interests and are committed to universal democratic principles and aspirations.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Russian Federation, further referred to as the Parties, guided by a spirit of mutual respect and in the interests of developing wide-ranging and friendly relations between their two countries and also their broad cooperation in the international arena, have agreed upon the following:
I
1. The Parties recognise that, with the dissolution of the USSR, a group of independent and sovereign states has joined the world community. At the same time, the Russian Federation continues to be responsible in full for the international rights and obligations previously assumed by the Soviet Union.
2. The Parties declare that the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation are friendly States and partners within the international community. Relations between them will be founded on a shared commitment to the principles of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and also upon respect for the letter and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations, the Helsinki Final Act, the Paris Charter for a New Europe and other documents of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
3. Between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation there are no ideological barriers, and no political impediments to the growth of friendship and mutual understanding between the British and Russian peoples.
II
4. The Parties recognise their special responsibility as Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council for the maintenance of the peace and security of all States and to cooperate in the fulfilment of the principles of justice, democracy and common human values. They will do all in their power to enhance the effectiveness of the United Nations Organisation.
5. The Parties welcome the transition from confrontation to cooperation in Europe and the world, and the resultant strengthening of the security of all States. They declare that their armed forces are designated purely for defensive purposes. The United Kingdom and the Russian Federation are committed to the principle that the command, control and management of armed forces should be organised within the framework of democratic institutions and the rule of law. The Parties attach the highest importance to the maintenance of international stability and security during this time of deep transformation in Europe and in the former Soviet Union. They declare their commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes by political means and through dialogue.
6. The Parties intend to undertake all steps necessary to ensure that nuclear weapons, and all other weapons of mass destruction, are held at all times under secure control. They believe that any proliferation of weapons of mass destruction carries serious risks for international peace and security.
7. The Parties reaffirm their strong commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention of 1972, and their readiness to conclude an agreement on a comprehensive ban on chemical weapons. They will remain in active consultation on these questions, and will also examine the potential for British/Russian cooperation in the destruction and safe disposal of surplus weapons in Russia. The United Kingdom and the Russian Federation will take steps to prevent the transfer to other countries of technology and expert knowledge which could contribute to the development of nuclear armaments and of other types of weapon of mass destruction.
8. The United Kingdom and the Russian Federation will work together to consolidate and carry forward agreements for the reduction of forces and armaments. They look to the very early ratification and implementation of the CFE Treaty, as well as of the START Agreement and of other measures to reduce nuclear weapons.
III
9. The Parties will organise regular exchanges of Ministerial visits. They will encourage inter-Parliamentary cooperation and contacts between legislative and executive bodies in the two countries, and will promote the exchange of experience in the preparation and implementation of legislation. The Parties will give all appropriate assistance to the development of contacts between public and private organisations in the two countries.
10. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation will hold regular consultations on both bilateral and international questions.
11. The Parties favour the further development of exchanges between the armed forces and Defence Ministries of the two countries at different levels and will seek to extend the scope and content of these exchanges.
IV
12. The Parties share the view that it is the objective of Governments to establish conditions for the development of free enterprise and of the creative abilities of individuals. They are committed to bilateral cooperation in conditions of a free market, economic liberalisation, free trade and sound management.
The Parties believe that the integration of the Russian Federation in the world economic system is a vital objective. This process will encourage private investment, stimulate trade and assist the more effective utilization of Russia’s large human and natural resources. The United Kingdom will continue to give active support to the Russian Federation’s application for membership at the earliest possible time of the International Monetary Fund, and of other international economic organisations.
13. The Parties acknowledge that there is potential for a large increase in trade between the two countries. They agree that economic reform, agreement on debt questions and the creation of a clear legal environment for investment will establish conditions for greater involvement by British companies in the Russian Federation.
14. The Parties consider it especially important that closer relations in different areas should be developed between all the countries of Europe.
The Russian Federation welcomes the United Kingdom’s longstanding commitment to an outward-looking European Community. The United Kingdom will continue to support the development of effective ties between the European Community and the Russian Federation.
V
15. The Parties acknowledge the importance of the early signature of a British/Russian Treaty, designed to consolidate the fundamental principles of future relations between the two countries.
Signed by:
JOHN MAJOR, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
BORIS N YELTSIN, President of the Russian Federation
Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on President Bush’s initiative on strategic nuclear weapons, released on Wednesday 29th January 1992.
PRIME MINISTER:
I warmly welcome President Bush’s latest proposals for strategic arms reductions and I congratulated the President earlier this week on this important and imaginative initiative.
The proposals address the key problems facing us in the strategic arena, namely how to increase global security and stability against the uncertain background of events in the former Soviet Union, and how to reduce the threat of nuclear confrontation.
I very much hope that the CIS leaders will respond positively to this initiative. For my part I will certainly support it in my talks with President Yeltsin on Thursday, 30 January.
The offer of further agreed reductions in strategic missiles deals with the problem of the most destabilising heavy missiles. This is a matter that is outstanding from the START negotiations. We believe it should be immensely reassuring to the Commonwealth States.
The President’s measures are a further step in reversing the process of nuclear competition between the superpowers. The security of the world will be greatly enhanced if President Yeltsin agrees to the elimination of multiple-warhead ICBMs – the most destabilising elements of the old Cold War confrontation. The way will then be open for Russia to move with the United States towards a more stable minimum deterrence increasingly concentrated on submarine forces.
The United Kingdom has always been committed to maintaining only a minimum nuclear deterrent. We announced last Autumn a cut of about half in the number of British sub-strategic weapons. In our view Trident is the minimum strategic deterrent necessary to guarantee this country’s future security.
The greatest danger we face is not the existence of deterrent forces, but the danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons into the hands of other powers in unstable regions of the world. The President’s very welcome initiative addresses this problem squarely and imaginatively.
Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th January 1992.
PRIME MINISTER:
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Ronnie Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
Mr. Campbell : Is the Prime Minister aware that people in my constituency of Blyth Valley eagerly await the RECHAR money? As there is a split in his Cabinet will he get off his backside, stop swanning around that desert island and have the money paid?
The Prime Minister : I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the RECHAR money has been paid by Britain into the European Community and that we should have it back. I hope that Commissioner Millan will release it speedily.
Sir William Shelton : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we already see benefits flowing from the citizens charter? I refer, for instance, to shorter hospital waiting lists and to school performance league tables. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what future benefits–proven benefits–the people of this country will see flowing from the citizens charter?
The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are determined to get the best possible value for the enormous amount of public money that is available at present. In addition to the improved information and guidance systems that we have already set up, there will be much more flexible opening hours in the case of tax offices, benefits offices and employment service offices, and a much more detailed and personal service for the taxpayer, who has the cost of those services compulsorily extracted in taxes from his or her pocket.
Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister now give a categoric assurance that he will not impose any increase in VAT? Will he please answer yes or no?
The Prime Minister : We have no plans to increase value added tax.
Mr. Kinnock : Why cannot the Prime Minister give a straight answer to a straight question? Is he aware that the words he has just used are exactly the same as those that were used by his predecessor just before her Government increased VAT? Why cannot he tell us now what his plans are? Or is he trying to forget that the Government have increased VAT five times in 13 years? Is not that why everyone has good reason to know that Tory Governments mean higher VAT?
The Prime Minister : There will be no VAT increase. Unlike the Labour party, we have published our spending plans and there is no need for us to raise VAT to meet them. So that the right hon. Gentleman is in no doubt, I tell him that I have no plans to raise the top rate of tax or the level of national insurance contributions.
Mr. Kinnock : It is time that the Prime Minister came clean with the country. In view of the record of Conservative Governments in always putting up VAT and in view of the Prime Minister’s promises on other aspects of policy, how can he pretend that his intention is not to put up VAT? Do not a Tory Government make VAT rises a certainty?
The Prime Minister : Before the right hon. Gentleman carries that fib any further, does he recall a further and earlier prediction about value added tax? I quote :
“Labour foresees 60 per cent. VAT. VAT could rise to 60 per cent. if radical tax changes are introduced by a new Tory Government.” The right hon. Gentleman may recall that prediction by his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) before the previous election. That was also the time when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook claimed that Labour would win by a landslide in the 1987 election. He was wrong on both points then and he is wrong now.
Mr. Gerald Bowden : Does my right hon. Friend agree–
[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House to settle down.
Mr. Bowden : Does my right hon. Friend agree– [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order.
Mr. Bowden : Does my right hon. Friend agree that a party’s commitment to public services is best judged by its record in government? Will my right hon. Friend consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ascertain who controls the 20 authorities that have the highest community charge, the highest rent arrears and more vacant properties than any other authorities? Does my borough of Southwark feature among them?
The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a sound and fair point. All too often, Labour-controlled councils provide shoddy services at far too high a cost. I well recall the Opposition saying, “If you wish to see what a Labour Government would be like, look at Labour local government.”
Mr. Ashdown : On the subject of predictions, and while the Prime Minister reflects today on the gloomy report by the Confederation of British Industry, does he recall on new year’s day this year saying on Radio 4 that in retrospect, we would look back and say that the economic recovery had already started? In retrospect, does the Prime Minister agree that he might spend less time talking up false economic dawns and more time taking action for economic recovery?
The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is becoming a professional gloom monger. When we look back to the present, it will be perfectly clear that in many sectors of the economy, the recovery has indeed started.
Mr. Onslow : Does my right hon. Friend remember that when the investment income surcharge was abolished in 1984, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer described it as an unfair and anomalous tax on savings and on the rewards of personal enterprise? What would he say today to anyone who was stupid enough to recommit himself to reintroducing it, as Labour has done?
The Prime Minister : I would certainly find that extraordinary. I would find it even more extraordinary from a party that claims to care about investment, yet clearly has no understanding that investment comes from savings.
Q2. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.
The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Livingstone : Given the commitment in the citizen’s charter to parental choice in education, will the Prime Minister agree to meet a small delegation of parents from William Gladstone school which has an excellent academic record and an expanding roll but which faces closure as Brent council wishes to sell the school because of its site value?
The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be happy to see the hon. Member concerned.
Mr. Michael Morris : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the greatest service he can continue to do for the British public is to keep inflation below 5 per cent? Is he further aware that the public remembers that inflation under Labour was 15 per cent., 20 per cent. and 25 per cent? In order to keep the level of inflation down, will he have a look at what is happening with the six major grocery chains, the increased share of the margins that they are getting and the fact that their margins are now twice the level found in the major grocery chains throughout Europe?
The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend says, inflation is low and we are determined that it will stay low. He will recall that inflation never fell below 7.4 per cent., and that for only a very brief period, while the Labour party was in Government.
I will certainly look at the point that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
Q3. Ms Hoey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.
The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Ms Hoey : Before the Prime Minister retires to his desert island, taking with him his Trollope and a very large section of my constituency– without my permission–will he give a clear and simple statement about what he will offer to pensioners so that they can retire with some luxury? Will he match Labour’s commitment to pensions?
The Prime Minister : A commitment to pensions means nothing if it is not matched by a commitment to low inflation.
Mr. Devlin rose–[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member has not asked a question of the Prime Minister for many months, and not in this Session, unlike some other hon. Members, now shouting “Marginal seat.”
Mr. Devlin : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at the study in The Financial Times on 6 January which pointed to the fact that the northern region has very much benefited from the economic restructuring of the 1980s and is now coming out of recession faster than any other part of the country, due to the success of the regeneration programmes that the Government have put in place in the region?
The Prime Minister : I have seen that myself in visits to the north. There is no doubt that the north has seen the start of many good things in this country and I am certain that it will be the same again with the economic recovery.
Q4. Mr. McKelvey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.
The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. McKelvey : Can the Prime Minister confirm that last Wednesday he had lunch with Lord Rothermere? Did he take the opportunity on that occasion to co-ordinate the campaign of lies and vilification that the Rothermere press has been conducting against the Labour party?
The Prime Minister : I took the opportunity to enjoy an excellent luncheon. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order.
Sir John Farr : As my right hon. Friend prepares himself for the important meeting with President Yeltsin later this week in London, will he take the opportunity of seeing what can be done to deal with the massive threat which still exists from all the different independent Russian states?
The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend says, this will be an important opportunity to discuss with President Yeltsin both the international difficulties posed by the break-up of the old Soviet Union and the extent to which the west might usefully help the Russian Republic in the difficulties that it faces at present. I anticipate that both those matters will be on our agenda.
Q5. Mr. Bernie Grant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.
The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Grant : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Labour-controlled Haringey council and the children, teachers and parents of Haringey on the fact that our schools came joint top in English, maths and science in the level 3 standard assessment test and top in the individual subject of science? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a remarkable achievement, bearing in mind the fact that Haringey is an inner-London borough and has all the associated problems? Is not he ashamed at the remarks of his predecessor and of his ministerial colleagues who have constantly criticised Haringey’s education policy and have cut its revenue support grant? Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that Haringey receives an increase in its revenue support grant and standard spending assessment as a result of its excellent work in educating the children at its schools?
The Prime Minister : I am delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I am especially pleased to hear that he now supports the tests introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I can tell from what he said that he is a strong supporter of the parents charter, without which those results might not have been fully known.
Mr. Conway : Will my right hon. Friend take time to congratulate British industry on the fact that it has achieved record exports in the past quarter, that 27 of the top 50 European companies are British and that Britain exports more of its national product than Japan? Are not those successful British companies sick and tired of being talked down by the doom-monger Labour party?
The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right. Yesterday’s trade figures showed clearly that export volumes were at record levels even in a worldwide economic downturn. My hon. Friend was also right about some Opposition Members talking down the economy. The Leader of the Opposition said in his letter to supporters at the beginning of this year that Britain had a £20 billion trade deficit, when the truth was that the deficit fell by a half and the right hon. Gentleman’s figures were wholly wrong. Perhaps he will now write again to his supporters and correct his error.
Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th January 1992.
PRIME MINISTER:
Engagements
Q1. Mr. Douglas : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : 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.
Mr. Douglas : Will the Prime Minister take some time today to examine his pledge not to turn his back on Lanarkshire? Will he give a clear indication of the earnestness of that pledge by agreeing to meet the shop stewards of Dalzell plant, who have indicated that they have a plan guaranteeing the effectiveness of their own plant, together with continued steel production in Scotland? Does he accept that he has an obligation to honour that pledge by examining every possible avenue to maintain steel production in Scotland, and in particular not to turn his back on a plan which has shown great effectiveness?
The Prime Minister : I made my position clear in Scotland some time ago. We certainly would not abandon the people of north Lanarkshire. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we shall be seeking agreement from the European Community to establish an enterprise zone such as those which, in other parts, have been very successful. He will also know that in the past year we have provided about £120 million extra assistance for north Lanarkshire through the Scottish Enterprise fund, East Kilbride development corporation, the iron and steel employees readaption benefit scheme, the Scottish Development Agency and much else. I am sure that either my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be happy to meet the shop stewards in Dalzell.
Mr. Thurnham : Does my right hon. Friend accept that, at a time of great international instability, the whole country welcomes his decision as chairman of the United Nations Security Council to call a meeting of that council later this month? Does not the acceptance of his invitation by President Bush, President Yeltsin, President Mitterrand and other world leaders prove the importance of that meeting? Is it not an insult to world leaders that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) should describe that as grubbing around for a photo opportunity?
The Prime Minister : We have had a very favourable response from Heads of Government, all of whom share our view that the meeting offers a unique opportunity to reinforce the role of the United Nations as a peacemaker and peacekeeper, to look at the role that they can play in both disarmament and non-proliferation, and to reinforce the role that they can play in terms of improving good government and human rights records in a large number of countries. There has been unanimous acceptance by Heads of State and Government among Security Council members to attend. I hope and believe that it will be a useful and worthwhile occasion.
Q2. Mr. Bidwell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.
The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Bidwell : Is the Prime Minister aware that conflicting views about the future of the railways are coming from No. 10 Downing street and from the Secretary of State for Transport? It is said that the Prime Minister has a view. May the House hear it today? There is an old saying, “This is no way to run a railway”–I suggest that this is no way to run a Government either.
The Prime Minister : On a non-controversial note, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his 75th birthday today.
We are discussing within government the right way to take forward the privatisation of British Railways. Our aim is to ensure that passengers get a better deal as a result. We believe that the way to do that is to expose the railways to private sector disciplines. That is what we are discussing. In due course, when we have discussed the detail of how that will be brought about, we shall make a public statement.
Mr. Lawrence : Since raising the quality of life of the British people is one of the main aims of my right hon. Friend’s Government, can we count on his support for my National Lottery Bill?
The Prime Minister : An important debate on my hon. and learned Friend’s Bill is scheduled for this Friday. The Under Secretary of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), will make the Government’s position clear in that debate.
Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to confirm that it is still his view that, as he put it in his own words just a few weeks ago,
“tax cuts in the Budget”
would be “unwise”, would “recreate problems” and would be “fools’ gold”?
The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has been misled. What I said in the interview in Harare, from which he has quoted, was that a reduction in interest rates just to stimulate the economy would be fools’ gold–as it would be. However, to help the right hon. Gentleman, I went on to add that if there was a prospect of tax reductions, we would take it and give people the opportunity to spend their money in their own interests.
Mr. Kinnock : Everyone will have the opportunity to check the words used in that interview and everyone will have the opportunity to ask why, if those words are so wrong, they have not been corrected before now. Does not the Prime Minister recall saying in precise terms that tax cuts in the Budget before the election–as he is precisely quoted as saying–would be “unwise”, would “recreate problems”, would be “unfair”, would “hurt” people and would be “economic tricks”– [Interruption.] Is it not clear– [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order.
Mr. Kinnock : As the hopes of Conservative Members fade, so their voices grow louder.
Is it not clear that what was fools’ gold in October is fools’ gold in January and would be fools’ gold in March?
The Prime Minister : As I said to the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago–clearly, he was not listening –the quotation that he used refers to a reduction in interest rates, not to a reduction in taxation. The right hon. Gentleman can check the quote–perhaps he should have done so before using it inaccurately. When it is prudent to make tax reductions, we shall make them, because we believe that people are better able to look after their own interests with their own money than any Government, however benevolent, would be. It is the right hon. Gentleman’s policy to increase taxation. He proposes the sharpest increases in taxes that we have had in peacetime since the war. That is expressly not the policy of this Government.
Mr. Kinnock : The right hon. Gentleman heads the Government who have imposed the highest tax burden in history on British families. He is the head of the party of high taxation. Why has he not the courage to stand by the words that he gave to his interviewer just a few months ago?
The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should not repeat what he has twice been told is incorrect. If he is concerned about the level of taxation, he might perhaps explain to the country why he proposes to increase the rate of taxation if given the chance. He might also explain why his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has suggested a luxury rate of value added tax, after all that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), has said in recent weeks.
Mr. Mills : Does my right hon. Friend recall those heady days in the early 1980s when, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), we changed industrial relations law? That has led to fewer days lost due to industrial action in Britain than in many of our competitor countries in Europe and abroad. Has my right hon. Friend read the recent report? Has he any comments? Will he continue to change industrial relations legislation to take further the Conservative progress which has helped democracy within trade unions and reduced the number of days lost to strikes?
The Prime Minister : There is no doubt that, as a result of the trade union reforms in the last decade, we have a far better record of industrial relations than our competitors elsewhere or than previously in Britain. When and where appropriate, we shall continue to make further improvements.
Q3. Mr. Fraser : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.
The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Fraser : Has the Prime Minister noted the remarks of the Minister for Public Transport about one class of service for business men and another, cheap and cheerful class of service, for typists? Despite the Minister’s apology, does not that statement, accurately sum up the Government’s policy on public services such as housing, education and health? The cheap and cheerful version of the service is hardly ever likely to be used by Cabinet Ministers or their families.
The Prime Minister : That is uncharacteristic, and I would not have expressed myself as my hon. Friend did. My hon. Friend has subsequently made it clear that he regrets expressing his views in that way. If every politician in government or opposition were forced to apologise for injudicious remarks, few of us would be doing anything else.
Q4. Mr. Michael Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.
The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Brown : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as a result of discussions between the American company Kimberley Clarke and the Department of Trade and Industry, it is likely that a factory employing 800 people is to be built in my constituency? Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of the DTI investment and the number of jobs to be created? Will he confirm that that is Conservative industrial policy working to the benefit of my constituency in particular and the country in general?
The Prime Minister : I am delighted to hear of the proposed investment and job creation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The amount of grant offered is, of course, a confidential matter between the Department and the company. On the other specific questions that my hon. Friend asks, I will make inquiries and write to him. He is entirely right that inward investment is created by the right policies of deregulation and low taxation. The enormous amount of inward investment that we have seen in recent years would be lost if those policies were reversed.
Mr. Ashdown : Further to the Prime Minister’s previous answer, does he not realise that, while he and his Chancellor argue about the Budget, and while his Cabinet is split on the matter, there is widespread public support for the view that at this time investment in the nation’s future should come before cuts in the basic rates of tax? Is the Prime Minister saying that he disagrees with that view?
The Prime Minister : I agree entirely with the importance of investment. Where I might disagree with the right hon. Gentleman is that I do not believe that investment is increased by increasing taxes.
Q5. Mr. Squire : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.
The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
Mr. Squire : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospect of a dictator or an irresponsible third-world country acquiring any of the 27,000 nuclear weapons previously controlled by the Soviet Union is literally a terrifying thought? Against that background, does he further agree that to maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent is as important and essential today as it ever has been?
The Prime Minister : I do agree with my hon. Friend on that point. The end of the Soviet empire creates a large number of opportunities, but also some dangers. We have to be prepared for both. The diminished threat to NATO gives us the opportunity to make prudent reductions in defence, but they must be prudent and it would at this stage be imprudent to lift our nuclear shield in any way.
Mr. Faulds : Why did the Prime Minister not have the courtesy to respond to a pre-Christmas appeal by Church leaders that he should make a statement– [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order.
Mr. Faulds rose–[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. The House is becoming disorderly.
Mr. Faulds rose–[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has as much right to express his view as any other Member of the House.
Mr. Faulds : Hon. Members seem embarrassed by good works. Why did the Prime Minister not have the courtesy to respond to a pre-Christmas appeal by Church leaders for him to make a statement urging stores not to break the Sunday trading laws? Did he simply lack the moral courage?
The Prime Minister : I have indicated the Government’s position on Sunday trading laws in the House on a number of occasions. I am interested to note the hon. Gentleman’s concern on behalf of the Churches. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not mention it to me on new year’s day when we had lunch together.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Soviet Union, made in an interview held on Tuesday 31st December 1991.
QUESTION:
[Mr Major was asked if the situation in the former Soviet Union was potentially dangerous].
PRIME MINISTER:
I think firstly one has to consider what Gorbachev has achieved and I think he deserves fair consideration. He has achieved I think two things: he has set the Soviet Union on the road to democracy but it is a difficult and it is a rocky road and it will take some time. And secondly what he has achieved is effectively the end of that form of socialism not just in the Soviet Union but around the whole world. Throughout the world you see it, in Latin America as well, countries that did declare themselves socialist are now looking at free markets and a different way of life. That is a very remarkable achievement.
Against that, the future for the former Soviet Union is not going to be easy, there are going to be very great problems and it is essential that the West enters into the most comprehensive dialogue with each and every one of the new republics.
QUESTION:
[Mr Major was asked if Boris Yeltsin would be strong enough to bring about a stable new nation].
PRIME MINISTER:
Only time will tell that, but he is a very considerable man. I think no-one who saw either at close quarters or at a distance the way he reacted during the coup could have any doubt about that. He is a man of stature, he is a man who is very concerned to make sure that Russia in particular is a success in the future and we must hope and help him to achieve the stature that will keep the Commonwealth together and enable the better relations we have had in recent years to continue.
QUESTION:
[Mr Major was asked if Mr Yeltsin understood the economic tasks ahead].
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not sure that anyone in the republics understands the depths of the economic problems facing the Soviet Union. We have economic problems in the West as well, but they are frankly as nothing to the economic problems that are being faced now in the former Soviet Union and that will be there for a long time to come. No-one should imagine that suddenly putting a newer economic programme into place will be easy or that the results of it will be swift. There has been a massive loss of production, a massive decline in the old Soviet Union in recent years and it is highly likely that that will continue in the future.
QUESTION:
[Mr Major was asked about the financial contribution the West might need to make].
PRIME MINISTER:
I think we should help the republics, I believe that is in our interests as well as I think being the humane sort of action that one would expect from the West. They do face very great difficulties. Over the past few months, largely because I have been Chairman of the Group of Seven, I have been intimately involved with the measures we have taken to put in place to help the republics in the future. There are many billion pounds worth of packages of assistance that are actually now available.
QUESTION:
[Mr Major was asked about Mr Gorbachev comments of saying that more was needed].
PRIME MINISTER:
Mr Gorbachev has said it is not enough but Mr Gorbachev also has acknowledged the tremendous amount that has been done both publicly and privately, some of the private letters he has written are letters I will treasure on that particular account. I have also proposed in the last few days that Russia should become full members of the IMF and the World Bank, I think that is a very important move forward. And I think it is also fair to say that this country has led the way in the provision of food aid and feed aid to animals in order to meet the short-term problems that they have, particularly in St Petersburg and in Moscow.
QUESTION:
[Mr Major was asked whether nuclear weapons posed a danger].
PRIME MINISTER:
I see no short-term risk there, but it is obviously a long term worry for a raft of reasons, not just who owns the nuclear weapons, but also whether some of the smaller republics might sell all or a part of their nuclear weapons armoury. And equally damaging, whether some of the nuclear scientific expertise that is in the former Soviet Union is actually purchased by Third World countries. We want to see no further proliferation of nuclear weapons and a reduction of the nuclear threshold that exists at present. So there are real worries there and that is why we are so keen to have a full and early dialogue with all the republics.