The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Soviet Union

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference at the Economic Summit – 17 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference at the Economic Summit in London, on Wednesday 17th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you all very much for being here to attend this press conference.

    We have had a very constructive and very enjoyable London Summit in the last couple of days, I think it has many virtues. The meeting brought out particularly clearly the extent to which we all share common values and common approaches to the main global issues that are at present before us.

    As you will know, we took as our theme for this conference “Building world partnership and strengthening the international order”. I would pick out eight particular achievements from this Summit.

    Firstly, on the political side in the text we released earlier this week the Gulf war and the aftermath have shown very clearly the crucial necessity for strengthening the United Nations. The Security Council and the Permanent Five of the Council in particular now work together probably as never before in the United Nations’ history. The United Nations can therefore become an instrument of peace-making and not just peace-keeping, fire prevention and not just fire fighting. and I think that is an important development.

    We have also proposed concrete steps to enable the United Nations to carry out one of its most essential tasks dealing rapidly, speedily, effectively with emergencies. And probably only the United Nations has the prestige and the resources to mobilise the kind of international effort we need to tackle a large human or natural disaster. And we have seen a number of illustrations in recent years of the sort of disasters that require action that can best be coordinated and pushed ahead by the United Nations.

    Amongst the suggestions that we have made is the designation of a high level official, answerable only to the United Nations Secretary General, responsible for directing and coordinating the international response to emergencies, including the mobilisation of financial resources.

    And secondly at the summit our emphasis has been on ensuring that a country like Iraq can never again build up such a huge and a deadly arsenal. We have outlined a number of measures we intend to pursue to ensure the better regulation of conventional arms sales and we are all pressing for the early adoption of a United Nations arms register.

    Thirdly, and turning to economic policy specifically, we recognise the increasing signs of economic recovery. These are very welcome but they do require us to maintain policies aimed at sustained recovery and at price stability. This strategy has created the conditions for sustainable growth and new jobs, it was very successful throughout the 1980s, it will I believe be equally successful throughout the 1990s.

    And fourthly, and vitally in the context of this conference, we committed ourselves to an ambitious package of results from the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations. Everyone’s aim, everyone’s aim, is to complete the round before the end of 1991 and we will all remain personally involved to ensure that that happens. We simply cannot allow the Uruguay Round to fail and so we will intervene if differences can only be resolved at the highest level and we are all personally committed to that approach.

    Fifthly, we renewed our firm commitment to support the economic and political reform efforts of the central and East European countries. We gave particular attention to improving their access to our markets since this is clearly one of the keys to increased foreign private investment in these countries and they need that investment to build up their economies and permit them to improve their own living standards and join the liberal market economies of the West.

    And sixthly, we welcome the spread of the principles of good government in developing countries. But many of those countries, and especially the poorest amongst those countries, still need our financial and our technical assistance to buttress their own efforts. A particular achievement of this conference was the agreement on the need for additional debt relief measures for the poorest most indebted countries going well beyond the Toronto Terms that were agreed in 1988. I am very pleased about this, I have been pressing for improved debt relief assistance for the poorest countries since I was Chancellor in proposals I made at Trinidad some time ago.

    And seventhly, we committed ourselves to work for a successful United Nations Conference on Environment and Development at Rio in June of next year. By the time of that Rio conference we aim to have achieved in particular a framework convention on climate change, an agreement on principles for forest conservation. And we also indicated that we support the negotiation of a framework convention on biological diversity by the end of next year. We also agreed to support financially the pilot programme for the conservation of the Brazilian tropical forest set in hand last year at the Houston Summit.

    And finally, we agreed to increase our efforts to reduce the demand for drugs, to improve the capacity of law enforcement agencies, to target illicit drug movements. In order to do that we invited the Customs Cooperation Council, on the basis of a United Kingdom initiative, to strengthen its cooperation with international traders and with international carriers.

    On the Soviet Union it was clear that we all support the moves towards political and economic transformation in the Soviet Union. we look forward to our meeting with President Gorbachev this afternoon. No-one present at the summit wanted to pre-judge those discussions and we will be making a separate statement on our meeting this evening together with President Gorbachev.

    This was the first Economic Summit that I have attended as a Head of Government. I discover that you get to know one another extremely well on these occasions and I think that is very important for a variety of reasons. It is certainly very important for tackling the issues we face and for making sure that one understands the particular concerns and interests of all the people with whom you are negotiating. As you will know, these meetings do not on the whole take operational decisions but they do set the policy within which individual operational decisions are then taken, either multilaterally or bilaterally or in some cases simply domestically.

    I believe in the present summit we have set policy in a constructive and relevant way, we have set policy in a way which will be welcomed I believe by many countries, by many organisations and by many individuals whose important interests we have sought to address in our discussions this week.

    Perhaps I may just finally take this public opportunity to thank all the organisers, interpreters and the many people too numerous to mention who have played an operational role in making sure that the summit was as successful as it could be.

    And finally If I may, perhaps at the risk of suffering for this over the course of the next few minutes, perhaps I may also thank you the press for the fair, full and frank way that I believe you have thus far reported the summit.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Peter Jay, BBC):

    Prime Minister, what assurances have you received from your European colleagues, especially President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl, that they will communicate paragraph 10 of this declaration to their Farm Ministers and if none what confidence do you have that there will be a world multilateral trading system for Mr Gorbachev to join as and when the Soviet Union has undertaken the necessary economic reforms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There was, Peter, in the discussions on the GATT round, some very frank, some very forceful debate and there was a remarkable unanimity on the political and the economic importance of ensuring that there was a successful round. Heads made it perfectly clear that they were prepared to commit themselves to personal involvement where necessary in order to resolve differences. And there are differences on agriculture, I do not think we should be hooked just on agriculture. there are great differences there but there are problems elsewhere on intellectual property, on services, on market access as well as agriculture, and on each of those it is necessary to make progress and if it is necessary for the Heads of Government to become involved then on the basis of our discussions they are committed to becoming involved in order to ensure that we reach an agreement within this calendar year – that is a global agreement and satisfactory to everyone on the question of the Uruguay Round.

    There were many sub-plots to that particular text but I think there was a particular interest of course that it is very important for the developing countries as well that we actually reach a satisfactory agreement with open markets. There is very little point in us as the richest, wealthiest industrial nations in the world providing aid to the developing countries and then having a restraint in international trade that causes more damage to their economies than we can put right by the aid we give them.

    So I think those arguments were very clearly expressed, very forcefully expressed and I believe the personal commitment that the Heads have undertaken to give will give this a real political push to make sure that we reach an agreement this year. It would be serious if we failed and we all know that.

    QUESTION:

    Inaudible.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What I perhaps should have added in my opening statement is that there was very considerable interest and concern expressed about the very important conference there will be in Rio next year, I hope personally to go to Rio, I believe a number of other Heads of Government will go there, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development will be immensely important, the most important conference of this sort that we have ever seen. And there will be many issues, no doubt that is one of them, there are others, the Brazilian rain forest issue I mentioned, and literally an enormous number of other issues and the right forum to address that will be the UN conference next year and it will be addressed there.

    JUDITH DAWSON (SKY NEWS):

    Might not President Gorbachev be forgiven for thinking there is a slight contradiction between the very strong support that you are giving to the reforms on paper and what he might expect to take home materially?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let us actually consider the question of President Gorbachev when I have a later press conference today but I will make some general points now:

    I think the first general point, Judith, is this: we have invited President Gorbachev to come and join us, the G7 Heads of Government, in order that we can discuss the Soviet economy, that we can discuss what remarkable progress it has made in the political and economic reforms and what still needs to be done.

    We have invited President Gorbachev here because we share with President Gorbachev a wish to see progress towards economic reform in the Soviet Union. We have not invited him here to say we are not interested in it; we have invited him to say we are interested in it and you will see the outcome of those discussions in the later part of this afternoon, so I am not going to pre-judge what will be the outcome of them.

    I think it is a matter of courtesy to discuss and listen to what President Gorbachev has to say and then to determine the extent to which we may help. We have helped very considerably over the past few years with the Soviet Union. The greater and much improved relationship there has been politically between the Soviet Union since President Gorbachev became President and the West generally is something of immense importance to all of us. He is here because we invited him here, because we are keen to see that progress on political and economic reform continue and it is an historic occasion to have the whole of the G7 Heads of Government sitting down with the President of the Soviet Union to discuss world matters and the particular problems there and I think President Gorbachev regards this as a very important event and so do we but it is not an isolated event. Nobody suggests that suddenly, when we have finished our discussions some time this afternoon, that that is going to be the end of debate between us – of course not. This is part of a continuing debate and it is part of a debate in which for some time we have been playing our part in helping the Soviet Union change its political and economic structure and we will continue to do that in future as well.

    QUESTION (LE MONDE):

    A question for the Prime Minister: I would like to know if you are satisfied with the result of the summit on arms sales and nonproliferation and especially I would like to know if you thought that the French delegation about this particular subject of arms sales and nonproliferation has been fully cooperative with the other six members of the G7.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I do. I do think that. We have got an agreed text on nonproliferation and on arms sales generally and there is no dispute about the objectives of that text and indeed, if I recall correctly, President Mitterrand has himself put forward his own initiatives on other occasions to deal with the general problems of arms proliferation, so I am very content with the text; I think it carries the debate forward. It must now go forward to the United Nations where the European Community countries will table language to actually carry this debate forward, so I am entirely content firstly that we have advanced the debate and secondly that there is a unanimity amongst all the G7 nations – as indeed there is amongst the other European Community nations not represented at G7 – that this is a matter of vital importance that we should develop further through the United Nations.

    PETER NORMAN (FINANCIAL TIMES):

    I notice from paragraph 44 that you have agreed on the need for additional debt relief for the poorest developing nations but apparently not agreed the additional debt relief. What are the problems here and are you personally disappointed that the words “Trinidad terms” are not in this summit communique?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no! They couldn’t be because “Trinidad terms” was a Commonwealth term. The reason we have agreed on the need is that we are not the forum that negotiates it; we are an integral part of the forum that negotiates it but the actual details of the debt relief will have to be negotiated in the Paris Club. It is now clear that it will be negotiated in the Paris Club but it is not for us, the G7, to make decisions that can properly be taken and only properly be taken in the Paris Club, so this gives a big push towards much greater debt relief for the very poorest countries exactly in the direction that we set out before. The details have yet to be determined but we are the wrong forum to determine the details but we are the right forum to make it clear that we, amongst the largest creditors of these poor indebted countries, are prepared to see a very substantial improvement in the write-off of their debts and we are, I emphasise, talking of write-off and not rescheduling.

    RALPH BEGLEITER (CNN):

    You have spent a lot of time at the summit discussing the Middle East ranging from Iraq to the Middle East peace process and arms proliferation as well. You have talked about curtailing arms flows to the region and elsewhere in the world. Why was the G7 unable to decide to cut off arms sales to all of the conflicting parties in the Middle East peace process as distinct from a cutoff of weapons to countries like Kuwait which are facing the aggression from Iraq? Why not cut off the arms sales to the Middle East peace process countries in order to pursue this problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not a question in the way you put it of cutting off arms sales. All of the G7 countries believe that other sovereign nations have the right to self-defence. What we are concerned about and what other countries not represented at our Conference were concerned about as well, is where there is a growth of armaments to such an extent that it exceeds the armaments that are necessary for defence and provides an accumulation of armaments that is of a sufficient size for offensive purposes and that is why we see the advantages of transparency and a United Nations arms register and agreeing amongst ourselves criteria for the sale of conventional arms. So those were the matters that were principally in our minds; they, of course, are matters that we will have to develop in the United Nations.

    ROBIN OAKLEY (THE TIMES):

    Prime Minister, which section of this Declaration proved hardest to agree and why?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I sometimes think, Robin, you would ask me about the secrets of the confessional if you thought I would give you an answer!

    There was very strenuous discussion on a number of aspects of it. There were very forceful points to be put. There was a very strenuous discussion on various aspects of the environment and on various aspects of the GATT Round but on all issues this was although friendly a very frank summit; people did speak their minds clearly, comprehensively and on occasions in an unforgettable way [Laughter] so I think it would be indelicate of me to pick out a particular highlight.

    KEITH ROCKWELL (JOURNAL OF COMMERCE):

    Prime Minister, the language in the communique is very strong indeed on the GATT but a sceptic might ask: “Such language was also included in Houston last year; why should we get the feeling that there is going to be progress in the Round by the end of 1991 if it could not have been achieved at the end of last year?”

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is the sort of question that can only be answered in retrospect by the actions that are taken. We have set out clearly our commitment. I believe on the basis of that commitment it would be perfectly possible, if it proved necessary, to actually call together a summit of Heads if the GATT Round looked as though it was going to fail. I don’t believe that will be necessary because I believe the commitment of Heads of Government that was expressed at this indicates that they will give it their personal involvement.

    There are difficult issues on a whole range of subjects that have to be solved but I think everybody was very aware of the difficulties there would be if we did not get a satisfactory agreement to the GATT Round, not just the obvious dangers of protectionism and a trade war, not just the differences between the Community, the North American States and the Cairns Group but also the areas that are close to agreement that would increase the flow of world trade to everyone’s benefit – that would be lost if we fail to get an agreement to the GATT Round.

    I think as people get closer to the deadline – and we of course in terms of negotiating this satisfactorily between now and the end of this year are close to a deadline – we have to start making progress speedily in a matter of weeks if we are going to get this thing satisfactorily concluded and I can only say to you, on the basis of what was said around the table and the concerns that were expressed around that table in a forceful and clear-cut way, that I have no doubt about the commitment of the Heads of Government to seek if at all possible to reach an agreement and there was an acknowledgement that this may mean for many individual countries painful decisions that in isolation they would prefer to avoid – it was expressly stated and expressly agreed that that would be the case – but the bigger prize for all of us is a loosening-up of world trade, a liberalisation of world trade, and a big step forward in the Uruguay Round, so I can only hope that you will accept our bona fides and I hope by 1 January next year I will be able to say to you: “We delivered!” Certainly, I think the commitment is there to deliver.

    JAN KOVIC (TV BELGRADE):

    In a Political Declaration and up to yesterday, G7 expressed their political support for the peaceful settlement of the political crisis in Yugoslavia. What if such settlement cannot be reached? Are there any counter-measures to be taken?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure that us expressing details of that is helpful to the present situation in Yugoslavia. There have been a number of initiatives to actually ensure that the first and most important ingredient actually comes about and that is that one actually is able to stop the current bloodshed in Yugoslavia. There is a great deal thereafter to follow on that; it is clearly a difficult and a messy problem to be solved. There are particular difficulties: the Slovenes have one view, the Croatians another; there is of course the always constant concern of the position of the Serbs and perhaps the Serbian minority in Croatia but there is a very great European interest collectively in seeing that this matter is settled satisfactorily.

    I have got no glib and easy answers that I can offer you this afternoon and I don’t believe there are any glib and easy answers that anyone could offer – not even the Foreign Secretary will be able to solve this matter in the next two or three minutes! But I can say to you that the understanding of the problem that exists within Yugoslavia was discussed at great length amongst the Foreign Ministers and has been discussed bilaterally amongst many of us. We all have an interest in making sure if we can, to the limits that we can do so, that there isn’t more fighting and bloodshed in Yugoslavia but the Yugoslavs at the end of the day must work out the way in which they proceed. We can express our own views and express our own hopes and express our own solutions but I don’t think we are in a position to impose them and I think we must wait and see how the debate develops.

    QUESTION (FINNISH TV):

    Prime Minister, G7 has clearly been backing Japan’s demand to have her Islands back. How strongly will you back this afternoon the request for the independence of the Baltic States?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to go into the details of our discussions this afternoon. There are many things we want to discuss this afternoon with President Gorbachev and many of them are practical issues that arise out of the extensive Paper that he has prepared and that he has circulated to Heads of Government.

    We have a great will to help where we can but that help has to be practical. We have to make sure there is no failure of dialogue between the Soviet Union and ourselves on a whole range of issues, including the ones you mentioned, including defence generally, including what the Soviet Union mean by “privatisation”, do they mean what we mean? Including what they mean by “liberalisation” and “price reform”; do they mean what we understand by those terms?

    This afternoon is going to be an occasion where across the table – not in formal set-piece statements but across the table – in what I think will be a very constructive dialogue, we can actually examine those matters and reach conclusions about how best to go forward but this is not an occasion for backing people into a corner; it is an occasion for extending the continuing dialogue we have had with the Soviet Union and expressing our views as forcibly as I hope and believe President Gorbachev will express his own, but I don’t think the points you raised particularly will emerge as crunch-points this afternoon.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    It is worth adding that the Baltic countries are mentioned in the Political Declaration so they are not forgotten; they are mentioned in the context of negotiations between the Soviet Union and the elected governments in the hope that they will resolve their future democratically and in accordance with the aspirations of the people. That is a re-statement of a familiar position but it does show that they have not been forgotten.

    GEORGE JONES (DAILY TELEGRAPH):

    Prime Minister, the Declaration speaks about welcome signs of economic recovery but earlier on this week the Chancellor was talking about coming out of recession in the second half of this year. I can’t see actually those words mentioned in the Declaration. Are you both confident that the recession is now over and that it will happen in the second half of this year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will ask the Chancellor to speak first and then I will follow up what he has to say.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    The view of the G7 was that the global recovery, the recovery of G7 from its lower rate of growth in the first six months of this year, was now happening; that recovery was under way both in Canada and in the United States and that whereas growth had slowed down in the first half of the year in France and Italy, growth would now be higher in the second half than they had anticipated, so for the global G7 economy we did see recovery and even for those countries that had not gone into recession an upward trend in growth.

    For the UK, this very much fits in with this and the fact that the United States and Canada are coming out of recession will be enormously beneficial to us. The fact that European currencies have depreciated against the dollar will also be an added impetus to recovery, all of which I think are thoroughly consistent with what I have said about our recovery which is not yet under way, our recovery beginning in the second half of the year.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there is anything to add to that. Thank you all very much indeed!

  • Mr Major’s Briefing with the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary – 11 July 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record press briefing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, and the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd. The briefing was given in London on 11th July 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Economic Summit this year, as you know, will be held in London next week between 15-17 July. The meeting will be held in Lancaster House, the same venue for the last Economic Summit held in the UK in 1984, seven years ago.

    On 17 July, when the Summit itself is over, I have invited President Gorbachev for a full afternoon of talks followed by a less formal dinner. This will be the first time that any Soviet President has taken part in such a meeting and I believe it will mark a further development both in relations between the Summit partners and the Soviet Union and also I hope in the economic and political development of the Soviet Union itself.

    These summits, as we have seen over recent years, by tradition range widely. Although they sometimes take decisions, their essential character is informal. The theme we have this year for the summit is building world partnership and strengthening the international order and our aim is to reinforce, to encourage the spread of values which all of those round the summit table share – democracy, sound economic management, respect for human rights, good government and the rule of law. And that over-arching theme runs through the wide range of both political and economic matters that we will discuss during the course of next week. Our overall aim at the summit is to stimulate multilateral economic cooperation and help to extend successful economic principles throughout the world.

    On the political side we will certainly discuss Yugoslavia, much of that discussion of course will depend on what state the present crisis has reached by early next week; the Middle East will certainly feature in our discussions; we will cover developments in Iraq, including the refugee problem and the Arab/Israel peace process; on South Africa we will be covering the need to ensure the economic recovery which will be necessary for the political reforms to succeed in both the medium and in the long term.

    I am sure also that the summit will consider giving particular emphasis to controlling sales of conventional arms. We simply cannot allow a country like Iraq ever again to build up a huge arsenal of deadly weapons, unchecked and in some cases unknown. So we will need to agree a series of principles governing such sales.

    Our focus will also be on ideas for strengthening the international order so that small states can feel safe from aggression from their larger neighbours and in particular we will be advancing a number of ideas for strengthening the role of the United Nations.

    On the economic side I hope the summit will be able to range over a number of matters. It will I hope give strong endorsement to the firm counter-inflation policies which produce good growth and low inflation in the 1980s. I certainly hope it will give a very strong push indeed to the Uruguay round of the GATT to ensure a successful conclusion this year. It will I trust give strong political backing to the reforms in Eastern Europe and help to improve access for their exports to Western markets. I hope it will take forward further the debt reduction for the poorest countries on the lines of the Trinidad Terms initiative I launched when I was Chancellor. And I hope it will also make a firm commitment to the successful outcome for the crucial UN Conference on Environment and Development that will be held in Brazil next June and I think that is particularly important insofar as climate change is concerned.

    At the end of the summit proper I am of course looking forward to the visit of President Gorbachev. The summit partners’ meeting with him will be a development of the process that was initiated at the Paris Summit in 1989 when he wrote a letter to the 7 Heads of Government present, that was carried forward at Houston with a study subsequently of the Soviet Union. The United Kingdom, and I am sure all our summit partners, firmly intend that this meeting should mark the beginning of a new process of cooperation and dialogue between our governments, our countries and the Soviet Union.

    The summit will not consider large-scale financial assistance but I do expect summit Heads of Government will want to explore with President Gorbachev his ideas for the economic and political reform of the Soviet Union, his ideas to mobilise the immense resources of the Soviet Union, both natural and human, I think that will be an important part of our discussions. We will also consider with President Gorbachev practical ways in which we can best cooperate, drawing on all relevant sources of bilateral and multilateral skills to support reform and to integrate the Soviet Union increasingly into the world economy.

    It looks therefore as though it is going to be a fairly crowded and I hope a worthwhile and productive week. We have endeavoured to make a particular effort to ensure that all of you who will have a difficult job to do over the next few days have the best facilities available at the Queen Elizabeth Press Centre. I have no doubt that you are going to be busy, I hope in addition to being busy that you enjoy the occasion and I hope it turns out to be a successful, as I am sure it will be, and fascinating few days.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Prime Minister, I wonder if you could expand just a little on what you meant by the practical ways in which you can cooperate with Mr Gorbachev, you will obviously discuss with him the reforms but he would obviously like to take something concrete away, it is clear obviously that he cannot now expect to take a large suitcase full of cash but could he for example expect cash in the form of access to a know-how fund or greater access to a know-how fund, something of that sort?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We do not have a fixed agenda for what we are going to offer President Gorbachev and discuss with him when he comes, it is a genuine dialogue, so there is not a fixed agenda and a clear agreement of what actually will be the outcome of the discussion. There is in fact already a know-how fund available to Eastern Europe and partly to the Soviet Union. The sort of things I think we will discuss are new processes of cooperation to support economic reform, advice and assistance on matters like property rights, privatisation, how to expand and develop businesses.

    I think there will be a widespread feeling that there ought to be technical assistance and I draw the distinction between technical assistance and large sums of money. I think it is probable that we will discuss whether the Soviet Union could be associated in some way with international financial institutions, including perhaps the IMF, and we will need to establish a framework to follow-up after the summit the matters that are discussed at the summit. I would not imagine it would be a brief, single discussion that would both begin and terminate on Thursday of next week, I think there would be a framework of some sort to follow it up later.

    QUESTION (Peter Day, BBC):

    What can the summit do for the ordinary British person perhaps worried about unemployment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the concern that people have about unemployment both in this country and in many countries abroad is clearly related to what is going to happen to the world economy generally. None of us is isolated, certainly we are not in the United Kingdom, so I think we will be looking to see what we can determine in terms of economic management to create a low inflation, inflation-free if possible, sustainable growth for the world economy generally. That I think is the best and most productive way we can approach the problems of unemployment both in this country and in many other countries where the unemployment problem is acute,

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    In view of the speech you made earlier this week expressing strong remarks about the dangers to the environment, particularly the rain forests, what practical steps do you hope to achieve on the environment at the summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think the summit of itself is going to make vast new proposals insofar as the environment is concerned. I would be very surprised if we did not do a further analysis of Brazilian prospects on safeguarding the Brazilian rainforests, that I suspect is a specific matter that we will discuss. One thing I would hope that would come out of our conference next week is a commitment that the G7 Heads of Government should attend in person the Environment and Development Conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and if that does happen I think it will be probably the first time ever that the Heads of Government from all round the world, not just in groups like the G7 or the Permanent Five or the G24, would have actually gathered together for a single conference to discuss a single particular problem. But I hope that is something that we will encourage at the summit next week so that we may have the most successful development conference we possibly can in Brazil next year.

    QUESTION (Jerry Lewis, Israel Radio):

    You have mentioned great emphasis on trying to restrict the sale of arms, how does that tie in with the proposal evidently made yesterday at the EC by Mr Hogg to lift the ban on arms sales to Syria and what proposals do you have specifically to advance the peace process on the Arab/Israel front?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we are seeking to do in terms of arms control, each country has a right to arms for defensive purposes, I think no-one would dispute that, the concern that we have particularly in the United Kingdom is where the growth of armaments in a particular country far exceeds what is necessary for defensive purposes and becomes an arsenal satisfactory for offensive purposes.

    What we are seeking to do through the United Nations is to obtain more transparency so that people are aware of the scale of armaments that countries are building up and that is of course what underpins our particular desire for a transparent register of arms sales, I think that is a practical proposition that will work, most of the arms sales come from the Permanent Five, if the Permanent Five will actually agree to such transparency then we will be able to monitor to a far greater extent than ever before what armaments are actually in the hands of regional governments and observe when a particular regional government becomes so powerful in terms of armaments that it may have an offensive intention.

    I have nothing to add about Syria to what Mr Hogg said yesterday.

    ADAM BOULTON (SKY NEWS):

    Prime Minister, given the extent of the preparatory bilateral meetings which have been taking place in which you have not been playing a part in the last week or so, are you confident you won’t be ambushed with any surprises? Following up on that, what would you say to the suggestion that G7 is in fact a fiction and that really G3 – Japan, America and Germany – call all the shots?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would not agree with that both in terms of the discussions I have had previously in G7 fora as a finance minister and also briefly as a foreign affairs minister as well; I certainly would not agree that that is the case and I think there is a lot of practical evidence to indicate that it is not.

    Insofar as ambush is concerned, I don’t think there has been a single week since I became Prime Minister last November when someone has not suggested somewhere that I was going to be ambushed by someone on some particular topic. Thus far, I have no arrows sticking out of me and I certainly don’t expect any next week.

    ELEANOR GOODMAN (CHANNEL 4 NEWS):

    You talked about firm counter-inflationary policies. Can you hope that this Summit will in any way accelerate the reduction in interest rates or are the members of G7 too divided over this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure that Heads of Government is the right place necessary to consider the more detailed matter that you raise of coordination of interest rates; that is a matter for the finance ministers and the finance ministers meet in G7 fora as well so that would be a matter for them. I don’t imagine that is going to be a particular subject for discussion this week. The general framework of economic management, the objectives of economic management, the need to bear down continually on inflation and produce sustainable growth is a legitimate matter for Heads of Government to discuss and we will do so. The details of coordination under Louvre, under Plaza or whatever other agreement one may have in mind, I think is more appropriate a matter for the finance ministers themselves to discuss.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    We had a discussion in G7 just a few weeks ago. I would imagine we will be talking more generally about savings and investment and the position of fiscal deficits and emphasising that the reduction of fiscal deficits is extremely important and from a long-term point of view of achieving lower interest rates it is concentration on a strong fiscal position – that is what I imagine we will discuss.

    ROBIN OAKLEY (THE TIMES):

    Prime Minister, the political achievements since the Gulf War don’t seem to have lived up to the military achievements. Do you hope that this Summit can do anything in the next week to help along the Middle East peace process?

    A second, practical question: we often get grand declarations about drugs or terrorism and such subjects at these Summits but there never seems to be much follow-up afterwards. Are you going to do anything about the practical follow-up process between this Summit and the next one?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I mentioned insofar as the latter point is concerned, particularly a framework for following up the discussions with President Gorbachev and I certainly would not expect that this conference should produce declarations that are not then going to be subject to a detailed follow-up – I would not expect that to happen. If we indicate areas of interest and policy, then we would wish to see how they were going to be followed up in order that we could monitor what was to be done.

    Insofar as the peace process in the Middle East is concerned, I don’t think you should expect anything dramatic out of this Summit. This has been a problem that has been with us for a long time; it is continuing. I think we will wish to take stock of the present position and ensure that the drift of policy is in the right direction but I would not expect any dramatic new initiatives over the period of the next week.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    The initiative which the United States Administration launched earlier this year after the end of the Gulf War on the Arab-Israel problem is of course still in action and I think everybody around the G7 table supports it and will continue to do so. It has always seemed to us very important that the Americans should put all the energy and enthusiasm they can into bringing the parties together. They have made some progress but not yet sufficient for a conference to be held. I am sure that backing will continue.

    PETER NORMAN:

    Prime Minister, you said you wanted to give a very strong push indeed to the GATT talks and also said you hoped that the Summit would come out and press for a favourable conclusion by the end of this year. The Houston Summit a year ago said exactly the same thing after much wrangling and the GATT talks nearly collapsed in December, so what has changed since then? Why are you confident that things can be different this year and isn’t the G7 credibility getting rather tattered on this issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I regard the successful outcome of the Uruguay Round as one of the most important things on the international scene at the moment. The impact of a Uruguay Round that failed I think would be very serious in the temptation that it would lead people towards all sorts of artificial trade barriers, protectionism and a trade war so I think it is extremely important that the Uruguay Round is a success. I think we not only need to signal the need for success, including progress on agriculture at the earliest possible date, on matters to do with services and also market access but I think the particular point that I would wish to emphasise is that we need a specific commitment of the Heads of Government if necessary to make sure that there is a sufficient degree of political clout to make sure that the Uruguay Round does proceed. No-one doubts the difficulties of getting a successful outcome to the Uruguay Round, equally I think no-one can possibly push aside the dangers of not having such an outcome.

    QUESTION (JAPANESE NEWSPAPER):

    Concerning aid to the Soviet Union, it is reported that Japan is reluctant to offer a large amount of money because of the problem of the Northern Islands. Are you going to suggest to the Japanese Government or persuade the Japanese Government to take a more positive attitude or to become our biggest contributor?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the relationship between the Japanese Government and the Soviet Union over the Northern Islands is one that has been there for a long time; it has been the subject of discussion and I can’t answer for how the Japanese Government will deal with that matter in our general discussions but the question of large-scale aid, as I indicated earlier, is not likely to come up at this particular Summit. I indicated the areas where I thought there would be discussion with the Soviet Union and what would happen but I do not expect it to embrace large-scale financial aid, perhaps the balance of payments or even for some other purpose so I don’t think the particular push you have in mind is one that is likely to feature on our agenda at all.

    KEITH ROCKWELL (JOURNAL OF COMMERCE):

    Prime Minister, Mr. Yevenski and Mr. Allison have been trundling their plan around Europe in the past couple of weeks. I wonder if you could give us your impressions of that plan and what areas of it may need to be firmed-up before it would meet with your approval?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We don’t yet know what President Gorbachev is going to say to us when he comes and I don’t know whether it will be any one of the variety of plans that have been circulated or whether it will be a combination or whether it will be something wholly separate. I think I am going to concentrate on what President Gorbachev actually says to us and not the plans that have been in circulation for some time, so I would prefer to say nothing until I hear what the President has to say.

    HELEN PIK:

    Do you have any indication in advance if Mr. Gorbachev will be content with being told that he can expect no money at this Summit? Are you willing to make any commitment of future financial assistance after the review which you are going to set up in [Indistinct] and do you think that you can give Mr. Gorbachev enough to strengthen him domestically?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr. Gorbachev knows the remit for the discussions this week – that has of course been a matter of discussion with him. What he is going to say and what plans and ideas and what he is going to tell us about economic reform in the Soviet Union we don’t know but he knows the broad parameters for discussion for this week so I see no difficulties in that at all.

    We are very concerned to ensure that not only do the Soviet Union pass the legislation for economic reform but they actually implement the legislation so that economic reform itself can actually come about. That is the key point and we will be very interested to hear what President Gorbachev has to say about that. How matters develop subsequently will of course depend upon how the economic reform programme proceeds.

    QUESTION (POLISH PRESS AGENCY):

    Central European countries’ balance of trade suffers with the collapse of trade with the Soviet Union which simply does not have money to pay for sufficient imported goods. There were some ideas circulating to help the Soviet Union and those Central European countries by supporting mutual trade. Do you agree with this concept?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are several things floating around in Central and Eastern Europe, certainly what we have in the United Kingdom and call the Know-How Fund and there are similar arrangements with other countries that have a slightly different remit but they all have the same underlying objective and that is to promote long-term private investment in Eastern Europe and promote the movement towards a market economy so that the Eastern European nations are manufacturing and producing goods that are readily saleable to the West. The counterpoint for that is to make sure that we provide them with the market access to the West without which of course it would be a pretty futile gesture simply providing them with the know-how in order to increase their manufacturing and private sector capacity. I think those are the matters that are likely to be under discussion over the next few days.

    QUESTION (LE MONDE):

    Prime Minister, I understand that this activity, Economic Summits, were initiated by Monsieur [Indistinct] quite a long time ago. At that time it was supposed to be totally informal and based on economics. For quite a time it seems to be more political and less and less informal and more and more formal. Do you believe there is still space for real economic activity or negotiation in those meetings and what do you think of Mr. Gorbachev’s invitation to this Summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think they are still informal occasions; they are conducted informally; there isn’t a rigidity about the matters that are raised – they are discussed beforehand and if any of the G7 want a particular matter on the agenda it tends to be there. Other matters will be raised no doubt that are not on the agenda, so they retain their informal aspect. I think the value in them is not only in the informality of the way a wide number of things are addressed but also as an increasing acknowledgement of the inter-independence that each of the countries even up to and including the largest and most powerful of them have with the economies of the other countries there, so that interdependence, that knowledge of what is actually in the minds of the people running the economies in those countries and the foreign affairs in terms of the foreign affairs ministers in those countries is very valuable. That would be destroyed I think if it were too rigid a structure, which is why although you may be correct in saying they are less informal than they were many years – I can’t vouch for that, I wasn’t there – I can promise you that this week will certainly be informal.

    WILL HUTTON:

    [Indistinct] for the GATT talks, will that be confirmed or not? Endorsing the Trinidad terms: does that mean two-thirds debt write-off for the poorest countries?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first question, we will have to wait and see – I hope so. So far as the Trinidad terms are concerned, I am extremely keen to see progress on the Trinidad terms. It is a difficult package, it is a complex package. The theory of it is simple – writing off their large sums of debts; the technical application of that theory is extremely difficult and has different ramifications in each of the G7 countries. I think we will make progress on the Trinidad terms; how far that progress will get, I am afraid I don’t yet know and that perhaps illustrates the point I made a few moments ago that there is an informality in these meetings and there is a great deal to be determined as a result of the discussions that take place at them.

    COLIN BROWN (THE INDEPENDENT):

    The Soviet Union appears to be increasing spending on defence in spite of the various arms negotiations they are involved in. Although you are not going to directly discuss the subject of financial aid, do you think in principle the two ought to be linked and that the Soviet Union ought not to get financial aid until it starts cutting expenditure on defence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are naturally concerned about two things related to defence: firstly, the degree of expenditure the Soviet Union continues to put into its defence structure – that is a matter of concern and may well be discussed; secondly, to ensure that the Soviet Union actually implements the agreements that they have previously entered into on disbandment of defence. It is still a matter of some concern to us, the transfer of tanks from the army to the navy which leaves the Soviet navy with rather more tanks than many Western armies, so those are the sort of things that will be discussed and of course we will have to take those into account in considering what assistance we can offer the Soviet Union in the short- and the long-term on their economic reform programme.

    WILLIAM KEEGAN (THE OBSERVER):

    Prime Minister, if there is to be no new Marshall Plan on this occasion, is there going to be a Major Plan?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There certainly is not going to be a Marshall Plan, William. There will certainly be a discussion but I certainly would not give it any such name!

  • PMQT – 13 June 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th June 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Amess : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

    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. Amess : Does my right hon. Friend agree with many of my constituents in Basildon that although the Labour party talked about European reform when it was in power, it achieved nothing? Will my right hon. Friend continue to negotiate in the interests of this country within the European Community, as we have done so successfully in the past?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. The budget rebate negotiated by the present Government was very welcome. Nothing whatever in terms of budget rebates was negotiated by the predecessor Government. I believe strongly that it is in our national interest to negotiate within Europe and to reach a conclusion that will enable the whole Community to go forward together. That clearly is the best prize for us and for the Community, and it is what we will seek to achieve.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is not it now clear that rising unemployment and deep recession provide the most accurate definition of Majorism?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am as concerned about getting unemployment down as anyone else in the House. The way in which to get unemployment down is to ensure that we get on top of inflation, as we are, and that wage demands and settlements begin to come down, as they are, so that the economy can yet again begin to grow. In the period of Conservative Government, there has been a great increase in the number of people in work and increasingly, as inflation falls, that will return to being the case.

    Mr. Kinnock : Today’s figures are the worst May unemployment figures on record and they are the direct result of the Prime Minister’s policies. Faced with that, is he still willing to say to the 2.25 million people who are now without jobs that their unemployment is a price worth paying?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should stop using the unemployed as political pawns– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : He does so not only in the way in which he conducts his politics, but in the way in which he frames his policies. He knows that Labour’s job tax would cost more jobs, he knows that the social action programme that Labour supports would cost more jobs, he knows that Labour’s strikers’ charter would cost more jobs and he knows that Labour’s minimum wage would cost more jobs. He is the last person in the House to lecture about unemployment.

    Mr. Kinnock : In the six months since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, unemployment– [Interruption.] I know that the Government do not want to hear about unemployment, but in the six months since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, unemployment in the United Kingdom has gone up by half a million. Is it not obvious that that is the true price of Majorism? It is a price not worth paying.

    The Prime Minister : In the six months since I became Prime Minister, the inflation rate has fallen from 10.9 to 6.4 per cent., interest rates have fallen from 15 to 11.5 per cent. and, as the right hon. Gentleman should know, unemployment in his constituency is 38 per cent. lower than it was at the last election.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Maureen Hicks : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mrs. Hicks : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under his leadership, the London economic summit will be an excellent opportunity to give impetus to the political and economic reforms of the Soviet Union?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with that proposition. Yesterday I had the opportunity to discuss the reforms in the Soviet Union with the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, and an extremely useful and worthwhile discussion it was. He brought with him a message from President Gorbachev reaffirming his commitment to political and economic reform. I am pleased to be able to say that, after consulting the leaders of the other countries in the Group of Seven, I today invited President Gorbachev to London for discussions with the Group of Seven immediately following the London summit. I also invited him to stay on at the end of the London summit for bilateral discussions. I regret– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is a very important matter.

    The Prime Minister : Most people would have thought it important, but apparently not Opposition Members.

    I propose to take the opportunity of discussing with President Gorbachev when he is here, all matters, including those of bilateral interest and the changes in the Soviet Union.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister recall telling us on Tuesday that he would speak his mind in future? Will he speak his mind today and tell us plainly, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury says that the Prime Minister is opposed– [Interruption.] When the right hon. Member for Cirencester– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. It was an understandable mistake.

    Mr. Ashdown : When the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) says that the Prime Minister is opposed not only to the imposition of a single European currency, but to the principle of a single European currency, is he correct?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) can speak for himself ; I have spoken for myself repeatedly on the subject. I have made it crystal clear to the House on a number of occasions that there is no question whatsoever of the imposition of a single currency on the House without the agreement of the House. That is, and remains, the position.

    Mr. Charles Wardle : As we move towards closer European co- operation, does my right hon. Friend agree that we all need to improve our skills in languages, perhaps even in double Dutch, so that we can translate the gibberish spoken on Europe by the Leader of the Opposition?

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I have not heard any double Dutch–let us deal with the first part of the question.

    The Prime Minister : I certainly agree that it would be advisable to improve skills in languages, which is something that I very much hope will happen among our young people. As to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, even if they were translated, I am not sure that they would be worth reading.

     

    Q3. Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Ross : Since the other major parties seem to agree that the United Kingdom ought to have a single currency and that there should be a federal Europe, does the Prime Minister agree that the Government have a responsibility to inform the citizens of this country of the consequences that would flow from that? Will the Government fulfil that responsibility and ensure that those issues form a major part of their manifesto–and of any referendum that might have to follow?

    The Prime Minister : I have spoken precisely about the impact of a single currency on this country on a number of occasions–not least when I set out our own plans for the hard ecu some months ago.

    Mr. David Martin : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, on his statement yesterday guaranteeing the rights of parents to see their children’s schools’ examination results? Does not that extend choice–which is at the heart of the Government’s reforms, but which is still hotly opposed by Labour?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly welcome that announcement, for parents have a right to know that information. In future, they will know it.

     

    Q4. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. McAllion : Since the Audit Commission reported this week that it costs the public purse £15 a time to collect an average amount of just £6 from those persons who are liable to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax, does the Prime Minister agree that, as well as oppressing the poor, the 20 per cent. rule is a waste of scarce public resources? Will he announce this afternoon that he intends to follow the commission’s advice and abolish the 20 per cent. contribution?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman produces only a partial comment from the Audit Commission. He neglects to mention that it supports strongly the Government’s aim of implementing the new council tax, which meets many of the objectives that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

    Mr. Thornton : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government’s compulsory competitive tendering legislation is being completely ignored in Liverpool? Is he further aware that the council has admitted to lying about the figures, spending £1 million more on one contract alone than was necessary? That is not the work of Militant Tendency, but of the so-called moderate Labour party.

    The Prime Minister : I am not entirely sure where the so-called moderate Labour party might be these days. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes an important point. Councils should use competitive tendering to improve efficiency and to provide the best service to their council taxpayers. As Councillor Keva Coombs said, to some effect :

    “The council’s problems are not down to resources. It costs four times more to pick up a piece of litter in Liverpool than it does in other areas.”

    That is Labour government in practice at local level.

     

    Q5. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Illsley : Is the Prime Minister aware that the unemployment statistics released this morning include a number of pub licensees who have been forced out of their public houses, and possibly on to the dole, because they cannot afford the massive rent increases imposed on them by the brewing industry? Will the Prime Minister re-examine the Government’s policy towards the brewing industry and the sale of beer, to prevent the wholesale eviction of pub tenants?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will know of the views of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and I have nothing further to add.

    Mr. Andy Stewart : It is six years since the coal industry dispute ended. Over that period, the miners of this country have broken their productivity record no fewer than 50 times, and their pay has increased 68 per cent.–making the miners of this country, as defined by the Labour party, super-rich. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate British miners on those achievements, and confirm that he will never, ever, tax their earnings at the rate of 59 per cent. as Labour proposes to do?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm that point to my hon. Friend. I can also confirm for him that we do not regard the super-rich as starting on an income of around £20,000 per year as the Opposition do.

     

    Q6. Mr. Nellist : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 June.

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

    Mr. Nellist : Is the Prime Minister aware of the case that I took up two and a half months ago with the Secretary of State for Health of the death of Dr. Robin Senior who started work at Epsom district hospital on 1 February, worked 110 out of the next 138 hours and died on Thursday 7 February? Will the Prime Minister confirm that today’s wholly inadequate agreement on a 72-hour working week for junior doctors will not come in until 1997? How many more junior doctors have to die or suffer stress- related illnesses before that is brought down to a sane level?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman’s party is pledged to spend no more money on the health service, he is in no position to criticise what is in fact a considerable improvement both for patients and for doctors. As soon as practicable, junior doctors’ hours will be reduced to an average of 83 a week, or fewer by the end of 1994. Those working in the busiest areas will have a maximum on-call average of 72 hours a week. That is not the time that they actually work ; it is the time that they are on call. It is a substantial reduction and if the hon. Gentleman were not so mealy-mouthed he would welcome it.

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

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

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (CNN):

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

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    Are you ruling out military action?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

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

    QUESTION (Eleanor Goodman):

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

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Comments on President Gorbachev – 5 March 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments made regarding President Gorbachev on Tuesday 5th March 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he felt reforms would continue under President Gorbachev].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He clearly faces very great difficulties in carrying them forward but I was left in no doubt that he thinks they are desirable, that he wishes to carry them forward and that it is his intention to carry them forward. What I don’t know, of course, is how successful he will be in doing that.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how he could support both President Gorbachev and independence for the Baltic states].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have supported the reforms in the Soviet Union which have been carried out under Mr Gorbachev’s leadership very strongly over the period of the last few years. Mr Gorbachev the reformer, we have supported, and Mr Gorbachev the reformer we will continue to support.

    I made our disapproval of what happened in the Baltic States very clear indeed.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was concerned about the Soviet’s economic policies].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not so much the policies in force that we are concerned about; it is the policies that we wish to see put in force that are not yet off the ground. It is all very well setting our your aspiration for a market-based society but you actually need practical action to bring it about and that that is what we wish to see.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Moscow – 5 March 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s press conference held in Moscow on Tuesday 5th March 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Perhaps I might firstly apologise to you for the fact that we have kept you waiting a few moments. I am afraid the day rather overran in one or two meetings but I hope it has not caused you too much inconvenience.

    I have had a very full day here today and I think a very worthwhile one. I began with a meeting over breakfast with representatives of the Baltic States; later on I had a meeting with some prominent liberals and radicals; beyond that I had a meeting with President Gorbachev and thereafter lunch with President Gorbachev and a number of his colleagues. This afternoon I had meetings with Mr Pavlov and then with Marshal Yazov. Later on this evening I have a meeting with Mr Shevardnadze.

    The centrepiece of the day was a lengthy meeting and lunch with President Gorbachev. We had an excellent talk, a long talk around four hours in total, including the discussion over luncheon. It was I think a very thorough discussion, at times an intense one, but it was good humoured and I believe producing useful and worthwhile results.

    We gave priority in our discussions to the Middle East and in particular to the form of a post-war settlement in the Gulf. The most encouraging point was the willingness of the Soviet Union to go on working with the other Permanent Members of the UN Security Council in the next phase of the peace. I think that is very welcome indeed and I know will be very welcome in the West. We agreed that it was basically for the countries of the region themselves to decide what form security arrangements should take. I explained to President Gorbachev that we did not plan to station ground forces permanently in the area. I also asked for Mr Gorbachev’s help over securing the release of all British citizens held in Iraq and he kindly undertook to give me that help. We agreed on the desirability of restraint on exports to the area of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and also on caution of the export of conventional arms. And finally we agreed that Foreign Ministers should meet soon to discuss these matters.

    On more general arms control issues we discussed problems on the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and I explained to President Gorbachev and later to Marshal Yazov where we saw problems with that. Mr Gorbachev agreed we must find solutions jointly or, as he put it, there is no alternative.

    We discussed of course the situation in the Baltic Republics. I explained to President Gorbachev the dismay that I felt and that the West generally had felt about the events in January of this year and I expressed also our hope that the way forward would be through negotiations. Mr Gorbachev contested some of the statements and decisions and comments that had been made in the West and emphasised the difficulties that he faced. He also emphasised in our discussion that he believed in a constitutional process to solve the problem of the Baltics. He emphasised also that if the Baltics followed that process then independence was a possible outcome.

    In addition we discussed a number of bilateral issues and over lunch President Gorbachev gave me a very full and very interesting account of political and economic reform in the Soviet Union. He emphasised very strongly indeed that he was personally committed to continue with that reform despite the difficulties and setbacks that inevitably there have been and will be.

    During our discussions I invited Mr Gorbachev to visit the United Kingdom and I hope he will be able to do so soon, he was happy to accept the invitation. He also returned the invitation by inviting me to return on an official visit to the Soviet Union so I think there will be plenty of opportunities in the future for more bilateral contacts and I welcome that without reservation.

    To sum up therefore I think we have had a very worthwhile day and some very good discussions which opened the way for us to work together on a future political settlement in the Middle East and also to resolve the remaining difficulties over the Conventional Forces Agreement. I believe on the back of that, and I hope this belief is reciprocated, that it has been a worthwhile day. Our personal relations were easy, I found it both an enjoyable as well as an interesting day and in short I believe we can say that the united Kingdom can continue to do business with Mr Gorbachev in a very satisfactory manner and I hope our future contacts will remain as cordial as they were today and that they will come about frequently.

    That I think summarises what we have been talking about today but I will endeavour to answer any questions you may have for a few moments.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr Prime Minister, what was the conclusion as to the situation in the Middle East and what is your vision of the mechanism to solve this problem? And what is your view concerning the security situation in that region and will there be a need for guarantees from great powers?

    PRIME MINISTER:
    I think in terms of the Middle East our first agreed conclusion was that we had to take into account first and foremost the views of the states that actually existed in the region so that we could see in what way we might meet their own security concerns.

    It was in that context that I emphasised that I certainly did not see a standing British or indeed Western army in the region though it was entirely possible at the end of discussions that the Arab nations themselves might have their own standing army. But we did agree that that was something that could only be determined after there had been greater discussions with the Middle East countries and after we could take into account the wider interests of the region. So we cannot yet reach a final conclusion on that but I think we are agreed that all members of the Permanent Five must continue to work together to ensure that we do find a satisfactory conclusion. The mechanism for reaching an agreement remains open. Certainly there will be a good deal of bilateral contact, there will also be discussions of Foreign Ministers that will take place in the not too distant future and certainly at the conclusion of the conflict the Security Council no doubt will wish to express its own views. But the mechanism for reaching a settlement in the Middle East remains to be determined and cannot be determined until we know more about the individual views of member states in the area.

    QUESTION:

    What did you talk with Mr Yazov about conventional arms in Europe, what explanations did he give about this subject and did you talk with Mr Pavlov about his accusations to the Western banks and did you discuss the Palestinian issue with Mr Gorbachev?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the third point first, the question of a Palestinian settlement, we did discuss that in our talks this morning as part of our general discussion on the Middle East and we agreed that now the Gulf conflict had ceased it was a priority in that area to try and find a settlement to the Palestinian problem and one that all countries would wish to pursue. There are a variety of ways in which it can be pursued, none of those are yet entirely clear as to which may turn out to be the best. But that it is a priority and that the prospects for a settlement are brighter today than they have been for some time was something we were able to agree about this morning.

    The discussions I had with Marshal Yazov about the CFE Agreement largely related to the problems we have seen about resubordination. We discussed that at some length, I expressed my concerns, the Defence Minister set out his response to that and I think it was a most useful and worthwhile exchange.

    I spent most of my time with the Prime Minister, Mr Pavlov, in discussing the economy rather than the individual comment that he made some time ago which I think has not been repeated. And so I felt it more prudent to discuss the wider issue of how the economy is being run, what needs to be done to carry reform forward, and I found that a most worthwhile exercise.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, could you say which parts of your talks were most intense and why?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were several parts of my talks with President Gorbachev that were intense. There were intense discussions over the Baltic States, a matter of very considerable importance; there were intense discussions over a number of other matters – I don’t think I want to elaborate all of them.

    When I say “intense”, I do not mean ill-humoured; I mean there were some frank and free exchanges; it was a candid but good-natured discussion.

    QUESTION (NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE):

    On the question of the Baltics, did Mr. Gorbachev have any reaction to the referendum that was carried on there over the weekend and when you say that he seemed committed to the constitutional path in allowing the Baltics to leave in a constitutional manner, did he say what he means by that? Did he mean the law that takes several years and several votes by several different parliaments to get out of the Soviet Union or did he seem to see a more flexible way?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think Mr. Gorbachev saw that as an immediate outcome. He pointed out that a constitutional path could lead to independence for the Baltic States and we discussed that at some lengths.

    QUESTION:

    And the referendum?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We touched upon that; it is a matter of fact that the referendum has taken place and the outcome of the referendum is known; there was not a great deal more that could be said other than to acknowledge that fact.

    QUESTION (IN RUSSIAN):

    For how long do you plan to continue your occupation of the Iraqi territory and how does it correspond to the European civilisation? That is my first question.

    Second, will the Security Council take a decision to use force against Israel in order to liberate the Syrian and Lebanese territory?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t regard us as occupying the Iraqi territory – it was the Iraqis who occupied the Kuwaiti territory; they declined to leave the Kuwaiti territory despite the Security Council Resolutions, despite having innumerable opportunities of doing so between August and January 15 and despite having opportunities to do so after January 15.

    The British forces will leave Iraq very speedily. As I indicated a few moments ago in my Statement, we have no intention of occupying Iraq, no intention of doing that whatsoever. There will be no standing army and the British forces and other Allied forces will leave. Neither is there any suggestion of changing the boundaries of Iraq – they are sacrosanct and they will remain so.

    So I do not agree with the way in which you put your question but the answer to it is that Western forces will not be there for a very great deal of time. There is an immense amount of clearing up and preparation to be done but they are not going to remain there as an occupying force. The parallel. I think you draw is not one that I would accept.

    QUESTION:

    My second question is is there any possibility of the Security Council calling for the use of force against Israel so that it liberates and withdraws from all Arab territories?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The question of the Palestinian problem in the wider sense is one of the matters that hope to be dealt with during the discussions on the Middle East and the position is that it will be discussed and dealt with in terms of Resolution 242 on the basis of peace for land. That was and is the situation.

    MR. WHITE (GUARDIAN):

    Prime Minister, you seem to be encouraged by what you have learned from the Soviet Prime Minister in your talks [indistinct] Soviet Union continued to play a constructive part. I wonder, on balance, on one or two of the main areas of discussion – the Baltics and economic political reform in the Soviet Union – have you come away more encouraged or less encouraged? You seemed to be suggesting there is quite a gap between what the Baltic States themselves want in terms of the negotiations and what Mr. Gorbachev has said that he was willing to [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is still a gap, of course there is still a gap but I think there is agreement as to how that gap should be bridged. It has to be bridged through negotiations and Mr. Gorbachev did indicate today that at the end of the negotiations through a constitutional process the prospect of independence was there. That, I think, is a worthwhile and welcome reassurance – I hope the Baltic States will accept it as such. I think to that extent I do find myself encouraged about it.

    On the question of the economic problems and perestroika in the widest aspects, there is absolutely no doubt in what Mr. Gorbachev said today that he is committed to the continuation of the economic reforms. Clearly, they are going to be lengthy and they are going to be difficult and I have no doubt there will be setbacks but I must say he was compelling in his assertion that he was determined to press on with those reforms. That certainly is encouraging though I don’t think anybody would have any doubt at all about the difficulties that lie ahead in doing so.

    QUESTION (CANADIAN BROADCASTING):

    Did you get any guarantees from President Gorbachev that the Soviet Union will not resume arms shipments to Iraq? Also, the Soviet peace initiative was met by criticism in some quarters in the West; has it raised questions in your mind as to Moscow’s motives and has it damaged Moscow’s relationship in any way with your country or with the West or with other members of the coalition?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The straightforward answer to the first question is “No!”. The answer to the second question is: No, it has not damaged the relationship with the West. Whenever the Soviet Union went back to the Security Council, it supported the Security Council Resolutions right up to and including the last few days and that was very welcome and I think the nature of discussions we have had today, the fact that I have invited Mr. Gorbachev back to the United Kingdom and he has invited me to come back to the Soviet Union again, illustrates that our relationship remains good.

    ROBIN OAKLEY (THE TIMES):

    Prime Minister, did Mr. Gorbachev agree with your frequently-expressed opinion that Saddam Hussein’s continuation in power would gravely hamper efforts to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East?

    Secondly, will you be making any attempt to restrain both Saudis and Kuwaitis now in their treatment of Palestinians in the interests of a wider settlement in the Middle East?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    President Gorbachev did not express a view in the terms you put it to me about Saddam Hussein but I think there is no doubt that he recognises where the majority blame – the complete blame in fact – for the conflict in the Middle East has itself arisen over the period of the last few months.

    Of course, there is a necessity for everyone to make sure that there is no ill treatment of Palestinians at the conclusion of the conflict. That is a point that we have already made to everybody in the region and we will continue to make it.

    ALISTAIR CAMPBELL:

    Prime Minister [indistinct] chances of Mr. Gorbachev’s political survival?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He is a very formidable man, Mr. Gorbachev, no question about that; a formidable politician with a huge range of achievements behind him. I knew that before I came, I know it now. I think he is no less formidable having talked to him for four hours than I did before I came.

    THE IRISH TIMES:

    I notice you said that you met some radical leaders this morning but clearly Mr. Yeltsin was not among them. Would you care to say how you see Mr. Yeltsin’s role in the political evolution here in the Soviet Union and did you consider it impolitic to meet him today?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I did not consider it impolitic to meet him and I hope at some stage in the not too distant future that I will have the opportunity of meeting him. As you saw from the programme I set out this morning, it was fairly crowded and because of other events I am only able on this occasion to stay here for one day and must be on a plane very shortly. That is the reason I did not meet Mr. Yeltsin. I think I had better express views about Mr. Yeltsin after I have met him rather than before.

    QUESTION (JERUSALEM NEWSPAPER):

    Are you going to support a Palestinian state after the Gulf war?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are certainly keen to see that there is a settlement of the Palestinian problem and as I said a few moments ago, that will be on the basis of Resolution 242. I hope that will be something that will enable all the appropriate parties in the Middle East to negotiate satisfactorily and reach a conclusion. I do not presuppose that that will either be easy or necessarily speedy but I do repeat what I said a few moments ago: I think the prospect of getting a settlement now is better than it has been before and we must pursue it vigorously – that is certainly what we intend to do.

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

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

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    It is a great pleasure to me, dear friend, to welcome you here today to the Federal Chancellor’s office in Bonn. It is your first official visit, Prime Minister, to Bonn and it was a further very intensive talk in a series of intensive talks that we have had since you assumed office and I am very happy that you have been my guest here today, if only for a few hours, and we have agreed that these talks are to be continued at regular intervals; our next meeting will take place in the first half of March. I also should like to express my gratitude for the fact that in these very difficult times we have kept in regular contact on the phone at least once a week and that we intend to continue to do so.

    For us and for me, it is of the greatest importance to develop the very close and friendly relationship existing between the United Kingdom and Germany as intensively as possible.

    We owe a lot to Great Britain; together with our American and French friends, they have over four decades guaranteed freedom and peace for the larger part of Germany; this is especially true for Berlin and we will never forget it. We are fully aware of what it means when British soldiers now stand in the Gulf to fight for freedom and international law also on our behalf and it is especially in these difficult hours that I should like to assure these soldiers of the United Kingdom and the Alliance as well as their wives and children, of our utmost sympathy.

    In the few hours at our disposal today, we discussed quite a number of subjects and touched upon a further few; allow me to mention just a few.

    Understandably, the subject of the Gulf War was one of the central issues that we discussed today. We all wish that international law will be restored as quickly as possible, that the occupation of Kuwait, which is in violation of international law, be ended and that international law will then see the light of day and it is now exclusively in the hands of Iraq and of its President to restore peace as quickly as possible. I should like to tell you, Prime Minister, that we, the Germans and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, stand at the side of our friends and allies in the Gulf and we know that the Allies have assumed a very difficult and important task on behalf of the international community. We hope that the war can be ended soon and that the decisions of the United Nations are fully respected and implemented by Iraq.

    Secondly, we discussed the situation in Central and South-Eastern Europe and the situation in the Soviet Union. We both share the view that it is of the utmost importance that the Soviet leadership continues to pursue the policy of perestroika, a policy of openness, and that problems that have come up will be solved in a peaceful manner without the use of force.

    We also intensively discussed further work within the European Community, on the continuation of the work of the two Inter-Governmental Conferences, on political union and on economic and monetary union. We have cooperated closely, as was agreed on the day of the inauguration of these conferences in London, and we intend to continue this cooperation.

    We also touched on a number of other points – I would simply like to name but one.

    We share a great interest in a successful outcome of the GATT Round and that the time is being used in the best manner possible, for example by the EEC delegation now present in Washington and then afterwards, in order to keep within the time framework. We are very much interested in the success of the GATT Round.

    Mr. Prime Minister, you have the floor!

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    Chancellor Helmut, firstly may I thank you for your hospitality today and for the warmth of your welcome.

    We have had the opportunity in the last two months or so of having a very large number of conversations on the telephone and the occasional meeting and I am delighted that we have been able to agree today not only more meetings in March but to retain and expand the very close relationship that I believe we have been developing over the last two months in the future.

    I was particularly pleased that the Federal Chancellor was able to accept my invitation to join me for a week-end in the United Kingdom at some undisclosed date when the weather is a little better, when I might have the opportunity of showing him rather more of England.
    I was encouraged by the large number of policy areas where we share both a common objective and a common assessment of the problem.

    There is, for example, no difference in our assessment and objectives insofar as the Gulf conflict is concerned and I was able to express to the Federal Chancellor my very warm thanks for the most generous donation that the German people have made towards the costs of that conflict that are currently being borne by the United Kingdom. We both share a complete commitment to meeting all of the Security Council Resolutions in this present matter.

    We also found a remarkable unity of view in our perception of the present difficulties in the Soviet Union and in particular in the Baltic States. Both Germany and the United Kingdom are very strong supporters of perestroika and we agreed that we wish to see perestroika continue and Mr. Gorbachev to continue with his reforms.

    We were also very pleased by the developments in South Africa and the further reforms proposed by President de Klerk. It is our view that these should be encouraged in the hope that in the not too distant future South Africa may be brought back within the African community of nations and the world community of nations.

    As the Chancellor said, we were also able to discuss a wide range of Community matters, both the Inter-Governmental Conferences and, of course, the very great importance of a successful outcome to the present GATT Round.

    There were a wide range of other matters we discussed, including the desirability of as close as possible a relationship between the CDU and the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom. These are all matters that I look forward to developing in our continuing contacts.

    The list we have given you of the matters we discussed is not, I think, exclusive but it does indicate the very wide range of matters that we were able to touch upon in our discussions today.

    I would like to conclude, for the moment, by reiterating my thanks to Chancellor Kohl for the very warm welcome and the most useful and friendly discussions that we have had today.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you said there is no difference in your views on the objectives of the Gulf War. Is the aim of the Allied Forces now not only to free Kuwait but to drive Saddam Hussein out of government and maybe into another world?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    No. Our objectives are as they have always been. I think one needs to recall that the Allied Forces are there under the international authority of the United Nations and we set out our objectives in the Security Council Resolutions that the United Nations have approved. Those are our objectives, those and no other.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Chancellor, was the subject of specific German financial assistance to the countries involved in the Gulf war discussed?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    You may have heard that the Prime Minister expressed his gratitude but we do not know what the future will bring. If the future brings further financial necessities, we will speak on them. I do not think you can deal with solidarity on a monthly basis.

    QUESTION:

    Could I ask you both, on the issue of political and economic union, do you not still find yourselves far apart on the ultimate aims of both?

    CHANCELLOR KOHL:

    Of course there are differences in views between us but what does that mean? We have come here in order to fight for a very important objective and if that question had been put to us ten years ago, we would have considered it completely impossible to imagine that ten years from that point in time we would have gone so far in the process of European unification.

    It is important now that we understand each other, that we work on the objective together, that of course we do not leave out the differences in views but that we try to find means and ways of getting together. You cannot expect things that have developed away from each other over a period of three hundred years to develop towards each other in a period of only thirty years.

    There are two things that are important for me:

    – that the obligation that our constitution places us under is taken seriously, to achieve German unity and European unification;
    – and second – this is also the policy that I pursue – not to box any party into a corner in European politics and least of all our British friends.

    I should like to walk along this path together with our British friends. Maybe we will have to make a detour but in politics detours have very often turned out to be the short cuts.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    We have a saying by a very famous British politician that total unity is the unity of the graveyard and even though he was a Socialist politician, it is quite a good comment! [Laughter].

    So yes, there are differences of emphasis and concern in some of the IGCs at the present time but we are only just beginning to discuss all these matters in the Inter-Governmental Conferences. There is a very long way to go yet and there are very many things that need discussion.
    I am optimistic that at the conclusion of these Inter-Governmental Conferences we will have been able to reach a conclusion that is satisfactory both to the United Kingdom and to our European partners and there are many areas of agreement upon which we can build. So we will enter into those Conferences in a very constructive frame of mind with some very clear ideas and we will bring those ideas before all our partners in the Community.

    The prize of an agreement in those Inter-Governmental Conferences between all the Twelve together is a very considerable prize. That may mean, therefore, as the Chancellor said, the occasional detour but that, of course, is what we have the discussions in the Inter-Governmental Conferences for and I remain confident that at the end of it, we will have an agreement that each member state will be able to present to its domestic parliament and invite them to approve. I very much hope that that will prove to be the case.

  • PMQT – 29 January 1991

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th January 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Cran : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 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. Cran : Would my right hon. Friend care to take this opportunity to assure foreign business men and tourists–and indeed, almost everyone else who comes to the United Kingdom–that they have been grossly misled into thinking that coming into the United Kingdom is a dangerous occupation? Would he confirm that using British aircraft and British airports is almost as safe as using those anywhere else in the world and that stringent security arrangements are in place? Will he confirm that they will stay in place as long as the threats, to which we are accustomed, continue?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. A great deal of effort has gone into ensuring that our aircraft and all other modes of transport are entirely safe. My hon. Friend is quite right. There is no question of people in this country being intimidated by terrorism. I hope very much that the usual clutch of visitors will come to this country, where they will find the usual warm welcome.

    Mr. Kinnock : Is it not clear to the right hon. Gentleman that, with unemployment rising, and output and investment falling, his interest rate policies have pushed Britain back into slump? Will he now change those policies before he inflicts further damage on British jobs, on British enterprise and on British competitiveness?

    The Prime Minister : I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that the thrust of policy is geared to dealing with the principal economic problem in front of us–the reduction of inflation–so that the economy may again begin to grow. That is the thrust of policy and it will continue to be so.

    Mr. Kinnock : Can the Prime Minister tell us how on earth cutting investment combats inflation? Is it not obvious to him that weakening British industry now will weaken the British economy in the future?

    The Prime Minister : As the Confederation of British Industry said yesterday in its report, it is encouraging that most employers expect to maintain spending on innovation and to maintain or increase spending on training. The right hon. Gentleman must recognise the substantive point that what really destroys the effectiveness of investment in this country is inflation, when it gets out of hand and when people can see that investment will not yield a proper reward.

    Mr. Kinnock : Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that, if British industry is to begin recovery in the course of this year, he must cut interest rates now and find a sensible way of restraining consumption? What is happening now is ruinous.

    The Prime Minister : When it is appropriate to reduce interest rates, people do so. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was urging us to join the exchange rate mechanism when the exchange rate was DM 2.95. We will reduce interest rates when it is appropriate to do so.

     

    Baltic States

    Q2. Mr. Hunter : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the Soviet Union’s handling of the Baltic states and their bid for independence.

    The Prime Minister : We have made our concern known very clearly to the Soviet authorities, in particular about the actions of Soviet troops in Vilnius and Riga and their tragic consequences. We believe that the Soviet authorities should withdraw their troops and negotiate with the elected authorities in the Baltic states on their aspirations.

    Mr. Hunter : In the light of the Soviet Union’s oppressive policies in the Baltic states, will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the factors that will determine future United Kingdom aid will be the Soviet Union’s acknowledgement of the Baltic states people’s right to self- determination?

    The Prime Minister : We have always supported the right of the people of the Baltic states to decide their future status through negotiation with the Soviet Union. That will continue to guide our policy in the future.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing : Is the Prime Minister aware that President Landsbergis will host a conference entitled “a free Lithuania in Europe” between 7 and 16 February in Vilnius and that, concurrent with that, he will conduct a national poll to establish changes within the constitution of the state of Lithuania? Does the Prime Minister agree that such a conference would be an ideal opportunity for an all-party delegation from the House to visit the Baltic states to see what is happening? Will the Prime Minister consider such a delegation?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her suggestion. That is a matter for hon. Members, not for me.

    Mr. Wilkinson : Will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly plain to the Soviet authorities that aid to the USSR as a unitary state is conditional on the maintenance of human rights and democratic freedoms within the constituent republics as they now are?

    The Prime Minister : I have previously done that, as my hon. Friend will know. I must add that, over the past few years, we have invested a great deal of time and effort, as has the United States, in improving the relationship and atmosphere with the Soviet Union. I hope that we can suspend judgment on some activities until we have further information. What appears to be happening in Vilnius and Riga is quite unacceptable, but I hope that we can suspend judgment until we see matters more clearly. Yet again, we make it clear to the Soviet Union that our support for Mr. Gorbachev is support for him and his reforms, not for repression.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Dunnachie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 January.

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

    Mr. Dunnachie : Is the Prime Minister aware that there is total support for his concern for the welfare of British troops in the Gulf? Will he put his money where his mouth is and give councils the money that they need to relieve their troops in the Gulf of the poll tax burden?

    The Prime Minister : As I indicated to the House the other day, authority already exists for local authorities to relieve troops during their period there.

    Mr. Cormack : Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the chairman of the Post Office this afternoon about the supply of the blue letter forms on which families write to forces in the Gulf? Is he aware that families of the Staffordshire regiment have been complaining that the forms are not readily available in many rural post offices?

    The Prime Minister : I can say to my hon. Friend that more have been distributed because of concern about that matter. About 600 sacks of mail are being moved each day to and from the Gulf. It is a massive operation. Hon. Members will have seen on television some of the difficulties that there are in delivering it.

     

    Q4. Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 January.

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

    Mr. Corbyn : Will the Prime Minister spend some time today considering the effects of 13 days of war in the Gulf, the deaths of service people, the massive losses of Iraqi civilians, the environmental destruction throughout the region, and the loss of some civil liberties in this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman accordingly join King Hussein of Jordan and the Pope in calling for a ceasefire in the war to enable the problems of the region to be addressed peacefully, as they will all be there at the end of the fighting?

    The Prime Minister : It was not the allies who ensured that the problems of the region could not be solved peacefully ; it was Saddam Hussein. It is perfectly clear what needs to be done before they can be addressed peacefully.

     

    Q5. Dr. Michael Clark : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 January.

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

    Dr. Clark : Will my right hon.Friend confirm that the coalition forces in the Gulf are striving to uphold the United Nations resolutions and that it is hoped, therefore, that as many members of the United Nations as possible will contribute towards this effort? Does he agree that there is every indication at the present time that this will happen, and that it is to be hoped that our friends and allies, particularly those that have not sent forces to the Gulf, will recognise their responsibilities and find ways of contributing to the war effort?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. A number of Governments have already made financial contributions towards the cost of the forces in the Gulf and a number of others have announced their intention to do so. I understand that Germany has made such an announcement just today. We are grateful for that and we will be in touch with the Governments concerned.

    Mr. Ashdown : Will the Prime Minister confirm that the objective of the coalition forces in the Gulf remains to secure the liberation, peace and stability of Kuwait and does not extend to the occupation and dismemberment of a defeated Iraq?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to confirm our war aims to the right hon. Gentleman. We have made them clear consistently. They are those set out in the United Nations Security Council resolutions. They have been and remain the aims of the allies.

     

    North Yorkshire

    Q6. Mr. Gregory : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to North Yorkshire.

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

    Mr. Gregory : Will my right hon. Friend encourage those banks and building societies that are offering mortgages to home owners in North Yorkshire to extend the facility to European currency unit mortgages, thereby reducing the interest rate by some 3 per cent?

    The Prime Minister : Banks and building societies have the capacity to do that at present. It is a matter for their judgment whether they do so and for their mortgage borrowers whether they seek such a facility.

    Mr. O’Brien : In the course of his visit to North Yorkshire, will the Prime Minister take note of the importance of the link from the A1 servicing North Yorkshire to the M1 to ease the congestion of traffic on the A642 through Oulton and Rothwell?

    The Prime Minister : I will do better than that ; I will tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    Mr. Dickens : Prime Minister, are you aware – [Hon. Members :– “No.”] Are you aware–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I have sympathy for the hon. Member. Give him a fair hearing.

    Mr. Dickens : Prime Minister, are you aware–

    Mr. Speaker : Why not proceed with the question? I think we have got the first bit.

    Mr. Dickens : Is the Prime Minister aware that my eldest son, Clive, signed on for the Gulf last week, and this week

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Did he do it in Yorkshire, that is the point?

    Mr. Dickens : Is this not more commendable than the behaviour of a lot of yellow-bellied Labour MPs?

    Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman absolutely spoiled a good opportunity.

     

    Engagements

    Q7. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 January.

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

    Mr. Skinner : When the Prime Minister is travelling around North Yorkshire, will he pay a visit to York and take note that the Conservative club is having a closing-down sale because it has gone bankrupt as a result of the Government’s business rate having increased from £5,000 to £15,000? Is it a Government policy to achieve a classless society by closing down Tory clubs in marginal seats? However, every cloud has a silver lining. When Labour comes into power we shall abolish the poll tax and there will be jobs in York, Derbyshire and everywhere else in Britain.

    The Prime Minister : But not, I think, for most people working today, for they will have long since retired.

     

    Q8. Mr. Holt : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 29 January.

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

    Mr. Holt : Is my right hon. Friend aware that this year the Northern regional health authority is receiving the largest sum that it has ever had? That is welcome news in the north of England. The 10.2 per cent. increase over last year means that the people of the north of England are getting a marvellous deal from the Government. In particular there will be the opportunity for increased capital investment in a new hospital in my constituency for which we have waited for over 10 years.

    The Prime Minister : I am pleased to hear that. I am always pleased when my hon. Friend is pleased. He is a doughty fighter for the north and has been for many years.

    Ms. Abbott : Will the Prime Minister confirm that there is nothing explicit in the appropriate United Nations resolutions that authorises an allied invasion of Iraq? Does he accept that although there is a widespread consensus in the House and internationally that Saddam Hussein must leave Kuwait, there is no such consensus for an allied invasion of Iraq to smash its military machine, with all the casualties and damage to Iraq’s people and infrastructure that would result?

    The Prime Minister : Resolution 678 authorises all necessary means to implement the objective of freeing Kuwait and restoring peace and security to the area. At this stage it is impossible to determine in detail precisely what that may mean. We shall need to judge that in the light of circumstances and we shall judge our actions against the security council resolutions.

    Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you have had a request from the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement about possible cuts in fire service provision which are the subject of an enormous lobby today by firemen and women worried about the cuts imposed by the Government on fire services?

    Mr. Speaker : I have had no such request.

  • PMQT – 15 January 1991

    The text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th January 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 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. Arnold : In the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend spare a thought for the Kuwaiti people who are now in the sixth month of brutal occupation? Does he agree that if British forces have to go into action, they will be fighting in support of the United Nations for the principle that small nations may live in freedom and in peace?

    The Prime Minister : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I shall of course, seek to deal with those matters in the course of my speech later this afternoon. If we are to have a safe world–and, clearly, that is our objective–we need to safeguard the positions of small countries with large and potentially aggressive neighbours.

    Mr. Kinnock : In view of the brutality– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : In view of the brutality against unarmed people in Lithuania and in Latvia in recent days, will the right hon. Gentleman today make direct contact with the Soviet Government to make it clear, beyond all doubt, that for Britain and the European Community any improved relations with the Soviet Union will relate directly to the extent to which the authorities conduct affairs peacefully and with proper respect for basic human rights in all parts of the Soviet Union? Will the right hon. Gentleman give notice that continued violence will severely deter support for economic development in the Soviet Union?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I can confirm that we have already made such representations to the Soviet authorities. I deeply deplore the actions in Vilnius and, of course, their tragic consequences. I regard them as unnecessary and undesirable, and I hope that they will never be repeated. I will be happy to pass the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks direct to the Soviet authorities.

    Sir Trevor Skeet : May I ask the Prime Minister a direct question? In the event of poisonous gas or bacteria being used in the middle east in the event of war, will he reserve the option to use a nuclear device if that is necessary for the protection of our own troops?

    The Prime Minister : We have made it very clear to the Iraqis that we would take a very serious view indeed of the use of any chemical or biological weapons, but I must say to my hon. Friend that we have a wide range of weapons and resources at our hands and I do not envisage needing to use the sanction that he suggests.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that he has the overwhelming support of the people of this nation and of this House in his determination to ensure that international law is upheld by the enactment in full of the United Nations resolutions requiring Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait? But does he also realise that, consistent with those terms, it is right to pursue every last possibility for peace? Notwithstanding the fact that the French initiative no doubt has very little chance of success, would not it be wiser to pursue rather then reject it?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support today and for his strong support in recent weeks, which has been most helpful and much appreciated. We certainly subscribe to the principle of a last appeal to Saddam Hussein to obey the Security Council resolutions and leave Kuwait, but we have considerable reservations about the particular wording proposed by the French, which seems to us materially to weaken the Security Council resolutions and to have some other drawbacks as well. While we subscribe to the principle of a last appeal, I fear that I cannot agree with the precise wording proposed by the French.

    Mr. Conway : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Iraqis’ ability to avoid the effectiveness of sanctions will be aided by the £4 billion worth of gold and foreign reserves looted from Kuwait? Will he assure the House that if we discover that any country breaking sanctions is in receipt of United Kingdom aid, that aid will be stopped immediately?

    The Prime Minister : We certainly take a very serious view indeed of sanctions-breaking, when one considers that sanctions have been working and, to a degree, effectively–although, alas, not remotely effectively enough to achieve the end that we wish, which is the removal of the Iraqis from Kuwait. I will certainly bear in mind the advice that my hon. Friend has given me.

     

    Q2. Mr. Nicholas Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 January.

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

    Mr. Brown : When the right hon. Gentleman met President Mitterrand, was he told the details of the French initiative and, if not, why not? If he was told the details, did he have any proposals of his own to make?

    The Prime Minister : I am bound to say that I think that the substantive part of the hon. Gentleman’s question would be more appropriately directed to President Mitterrand than to me.

     

    Terrorism

    Q3. Mr. Hunter : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the United Kingdom’s contribution to international co- operation against terrorism.

    The Prime Minister : We condemn all acts of terrorism wherever and by whomever committed. We shall maintain our firm stand against terrorism at home and overseas. We remain in very close touch with our partners and allies in these matters.

    Mr. Hunter : As so many terrorist organisations have declared their support for, or received support from, Saddam Hussein’s ally the Palestine Liberation Organisation, can my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be effective international co-operation against acts of terrorism which may be committed in support of Iraq and will he ensure that there will never be any surrender to terrorism?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm the last point to my hon. Friend and I very much hope that his earlier point is also the case. I can also assure him that we take the threat of terrorism very seriously indeed and have taken the appropriate cautionary measures. In particular, we have been urging other Governments to improve security at their airports. Very great vigilance will be required both at home and abroad and we are making it clear to everyone that that will undoubtedly be necessary in the weeks ahead.

    Mr. Madden : In view of the gathering support for the French initiative–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is a definitive question about terrorism.

    Rev. Martin Smyth : I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that we take a firm line on terrorism, but in the light of the two recent kamikaze bombings in Londonderry and Fermanagh is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he is getting full co-operation from the Republic of Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : The Irish Government have made clear to us their continuing commitment to cross-border co-operation against terrorism. We will, of course, continue to discuss improvements to that cross-border co-operation, through the mechanism of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

    Mr. Ian Bruce : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as we now have better relations with Syria, urging Syria at the end of this conflict to make peace with Israel would be an extremely good way of ensuring that international terrorism is dealt with?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we have restored our relationship with Syria and we hope that that will herald a greater degree of co-operation between our two countries. I hope that in future Syria will turn away from any form of terrorism.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Galbraith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 January.

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

    Mr. Galbraith : During the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Scotland he re-emphasised his position on the poll tax that nothing was ruled out and nothing was ruled in. Yet in the previous week, when interviewed by David Frost, he said that proposals for the abolition of the poll tax would not arise. Can he explain the apparent contradiction?

    The Prime Minister : First, the whole House is pleased to see the hon. Gentleman back in the House and looking a good deal fitter than he was. On his remarks about the community charge, we have repeatedly made the position clear. It is a fundamental review and until it is concluded we cannot be precisely certain about what will emerge. I offered a contingent thought in my early interview with Mr. Frost. What the reality will be, we shall have to see.

     

    Q5. Mr. Butler : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 January.

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

    Mr. Butler : What urgency does my right hon. Friend give to compensation for coal mining subsidence?

    The Prime Minister : I confirm to my hon. Friend that that is an important matter. He will know that the Government have been considering it for some time. I can now confirm to my hon. Friend that it is the Government’s intention to bring forward a Bill in the current Session. The Bill will improve the arrangements for compensation and the repair of houses for those affected by mining subsidence and provide for quicker settlement of disputed claims.

    Mr. Livingstone : Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the Government have not issued any contingency orders for the printing of call-up papers for men aged 18 to 25 who are unmarried?

    The Prime Minister : We have no such arrangements in hand.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Currie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 January.

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

    Mrs. Currie : Has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister noted the unanimous vote in the Iraqi National Assembly backing Saddam Hussein in his efforts for war? Does he agree that a unanimous vote in this House today would also demonstrate the determination of Britain, if it must, to put Saddam Hussein to flight and obtain justice for the Kuwaiti people?

    The Prime Minister : I most certainly did notice the vote in the Iraqi assembly. I share my hon. Friend’s view that the largest possible degree of support from the House for the Government’s position would be most welcome, not only as an indication of international solidarity but, perhaps more importantly, as the clearest possible indication to our troops in Saudi Arabia that they have the full and united support of the House.

    Mr. Leighton : Having invaded Kuwait to grab the oil, is it not true that Saddam Hussein has been unable to sell a single pint of it and has been unable to sell Iraqi oil either? While the two pipelines are closed, do not those effective sanctions render his position untenable in the long run? Would not it be better to maintain those effective sanctions, rather than resort to the early use of force, which could have unforeseen consequences?

    The Prime Minister : I can only say that I wish that the hon. Gentleman was right. The reality is that sanctions have been in force for a considerable period of time. They may have caused some economic harm to Iraq. What they have not done is cause Iraq to remove itself from Kuwait and end the terrorism that is continuing there day after day.

     

    Q7. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 January.

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

    Mrs. Gorman : Does my right hon. Friend agree that on a cold day such as today, young people should not be sleeping in our streets when they could be in the ample bosom of some kindly landlady who, but for the twin bogey men of the Rent Acts and the taxman, could be encouraged to let spare rooms? On such a cold day as this, we should be concentrating our minds on removing all the obstacles that prevent people from letting rooms in private houses.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend puts the matter most colourfully and is undoubtedly an encouragement to us all. As my hon. Friend will know, we reformed the Rent Acts in 1989 and we believe that the legislation now strikes a better balance between landlord and tenant. None the less, I agree with my hon. Friend that further measures are necessary to increase the supply of rented accommodation. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will be examining that matter.

     

    Q8. Mr. Trimble : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 January.

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

    Mr. Trimble : We applaud the Prime Minister’s determination that aggression in the Gulf shall not be rewarded and we only hope that the same determination is applied here as well. I refer the Prime Minister to recent press reports about indirect negotiations and contacts between the Northern Ireland Office and Sinn Fein. I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that there will be no such contacts, direct or indirect, and to ensure that the aggression and terrorism of the IRA and Sinn Fein are not rewarded.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken a consistent view that Irish terrorism, or terrorism of any sort, should not be rewarded. That has, been, is and I assure the hon. Gentleman, will continue to be our position.