The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: United Nations

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on President Yeltsin – 3 February 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on 3rd February 1992 on President Yeltsin and the UN Security Council.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about President Yeltsin’s visit to London on 30 January and about the special meeting of the UN Security Council in New York on 31 January. I was accompanied to New York by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Both meetings came at an important time in Russia’s relationship with the rest of the world and at a critical time for world peace and stability. Russia has, in President Yeltsin’s own words, thrown off the shackles of communism. She remains a nuclear super-power. As such, and as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, she has world responsibilities. It is essential for our own peace and security that Russia continues to play the positive role on which President Gorbachev embarked and which President Yeltsin is set to continue and to develop. I believe that we should offer them our support in this.

    I called the meeting in New York during our chairmanship of the Security Council so that the council could meet at the highest level to reaffirm and develop its commitment to peacekeeping and peacemaking. The timing was particularly apt following the appointment of a new Secretary-General and with Russia taking the seat in the Security Council formerly held by the Soviet Union. The meeting was successful, and I should like to highlight the key points.

    This was the first time in the 47 years of its history that the UN had met at the top level. For the first time ever, the Heads of State and Government of the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain sat around the same table and pledged themselves, with the other members of the council, to collective security, to international law and to our commitments under the United Nations’ charter.

    A statement was agreed by all the members of the Security Council. Copies are in the Library of the House. In it we reaffirmed that all disputes between states should be resolved peacefully in accordance with the provisions of the charter. We committed ourselves to the fight against terrorism. We asked the Secretary-General to make recommendations for a more effective role for the United Nations as peacekeeper and as peacemaker. Under article 99 of the charter, the Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which, in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. We hope the new Secretary-General will use those powers. He will report to us within six months with his recommendations. We committed ourselves to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation and to the conclusion of a chemical weapons convention this year. The council endorsed the idea put forward by the British Government, and recently endorsed by the General Assembly, of a UN register of conventional arms transfers. During his visit to London, President Yeltsin noted that Britain had been the first country to denounce the August coup, and the first to recognise Russia; the first to propose Russian membership of the International Monetary Fund; the first to propose an April deadline for that membership; and the first to support a stabilisation fund for the rouble.

    It is essential that Russia join the IMF at the earliest opportunity, and I believe that a stabilisation fund may need to follow if Russia is to have a prospect of establishing a successful market economy. There is, of course, a financial cost in this, but the cost of failure and a return to dictatorship and the cold war would be infinitely higher. It is in our national interest and in the interests of the west as a whole to help Russia, and we shall continue to take a lead in doing so. I undertook to make it one of the priorities of our presidency of the European Community later this year to carry through an improved trade and co-operation agreement with Russia.

    In our discussion of arms control issues, President Yeltsin committed Russia to further significant reductions in the Russian strategic and international arsenal. I told him that we had already committed ourselves to a cut of one half in our sub-strategic nuclear weapons and to smaller conventional forces. I told him also that Britain’s only strategic weapon would be the minimum deterrent constituted by Trident.

    President Yeltsin accepted that Trident was indeed a minimum deterrent and that the focus of arms control negotiations should be on the arsenal of the two super-powers. We agreed to co-operate in handling surplus Soviet weapons and in safeguarding nuclear materials. I offered to send a technical mission to Moscow to assess the immediate needs at first hand. I have also offered to send a small number of officials from the Ministry of Defence to the Russian Ministry of Defence to advise on the restructuring and control and financing of armed forces in a democratic society. We discussed the problem of the possible leakage of expertise from Russia in the field of weapons of mass destruction. President Yeltsin has made proposals for handling this problem, and we have offered our help as part of an international effort. The President and I agreed to establish a secure telephone link between our two offices. This is not meant as a crisis hot-line ; it will enable us to conduct the significant amount of business we have to undertake.

    We signed a joint declaration–the text of which is in the Library of the House–on relations between our two countries. It will form the basis of a treaty which the President and I hope to sign during the official visit to Britain which he will make later this year. It will be the first such treaty since 1766.

    This is a time of great hope in international affairs, but also of uncertainty and potential instability. The two meetings on which I have reported to the House have shown our determination to work for a safer world and a new partnership with Russia in the cause of peace.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 31st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Departmental Management

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list (i) for those Departments with a financial management initiative management system (a) the name in each case, (b) when it was established and (c) the name of the Minister who has direct supervision of the system; and (ii) those Departments which do not have a financial management initiative management system.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    This information is not held centrally and the question should be addressed to individual Ministers.

     

    Western Sahara

    Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to discuss the future status of the western Sahara during his forthcoming meeting at the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The subject may arise in discussion in the margins of the special meeting of the United Nations Security Council, but there is unlikely to be time for any detailed discussions of regional issues at the meeting itself.

     

    Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy at the forthcoming special meeting of the United Nations permanent members of the Security Council on proliferation (a) to establish agreed criteria for the completion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, (b) to urge President Mitterrand to finalise French membership of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to halt nuclear testing in the Polynesian islands in the Pacific and (c) to establish the basis for the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations under article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to negotiate nuclear disarmament with other treaty signatory states.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply. The main purpose of today’s special meeting of the UN Security Council is to reaffirm the importance of the UN’s role in maintaining international peace and security. This may include discussion of arms control agreements. However, we have no plans to raise the issues referred to in the question.

     

    Tax (Wales)

    Mr. Gwilym Jones : To ask the Prime Minister what is the total tax paid by the people of Wales, including to local councils; what is the total expenditure from that taxation in Wales by Government, local councils and all other bodies so financed including the relevant proportion for Wales of any expenditure on a wider basis; and what these figures are per head of the Welsh population.

    Mr. Mellor : I have been asked to reply. Information on the total tax paid by people in Wales is not available. Information is, for example, not available for capital gains tax. Data is available on income tax payments and the latest information, which relates to 1988-89, is given in table 2.10 of the 1991 issue of Inland Revenue Statistics. Precise figures for receipts from indirect tax payments paid by people in Wales are not available but it is estimated that the Welsh share of United Kingdom taxes collected by HM Customs and Excise in 1990-91 was about £2 billion. The latest information on community charge and non-domestic rate payments indicates that at 31 March 1991 local authorities had received an estimated £360 million (£125 per head) in community charges for 1990-91 and that payments of non-domestic rates by businesses for 1990-91 were an estimated £430 million (£150 per head) at the same date. Information on general government expenditure in Wales in 1990-91, other than that incurred for the benefit of the UK as a whole, is given in tables E6a and E6b of appendix E of the statistical supplement to the 1991 Autumn Statement (Cm. 1920).

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in New York – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in New York, held on Friday 31st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had a very wide-ranging and satisfactory debate thus far in the Security Council. I set out this morning some of the key elements that I thought would be the substance of our discussion, the powers of the United Nations peace-making, peace-keeping, non-proliferation, disarmament, and they and others have indeed proved to be the substance of what we have been discussing thus far.

    What is particularly noticeable I believe is the atmosphere in which the discussions have taken place. It is certainly within the memory of many of the people in the United Nations today when President Khrushchev was here banging his shoe on the table. We have seen a solid consensus that the United Nations needs strengthening and that we should set about that particular work speedily.

    So thus far it has been a very satisfactory meeting and I look forward to our conclusion later on today.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant):

    You are going to announce restrictions on biological material this afternoon, can you tell us the extent of the problem and how those restrictions would work in practice?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a domestic matter, that is a matter of UK legislation. We do have controls at present in the United Kingdom on items that can be exported that might be used for biological weapons. We propose to strengthen those and make them a matter for specific legislation and we will be setting out the full details of that shortly.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Yeltsin said that the success of the new world order you were discussing this morning depended in no small measure on the success of his reforms at home. What kind of things does he leave with to help believe that will occur?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think he came with something as well, he came with a permanent membership of the Security Council, he came with membership of the International Monetary Fund now firmly in view, he came in the belief that is being shown to be correct that there is widespread goodwill for assisting Russia throughout the world to ensure that their reforms are successful. I share his judgement, I think it is vitally important both for Russia and for everybody else that those reforms are successful and it is for that reason that the United Kingdom believes he should be given substantial help.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] Shi’ite prisoners, what is your reaction to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen those pictures yet, I am hoping to get a report on that later today and I will comment on it when I have had the report.

    QUESTION:

    What is your reaction to President Yeltsin’s call for [indistinct] security system?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have to examine precisely what that means and precisely how it would work. One of the features of the debate this morning is that a whole series of ideas have been produced, ideas in many cases that no-one was expecting. I think that is very refreshing and they are matters we will have to discuss in the future.

    QUESTION:

    Is there not some urgency in all of that because we shall not have the Secretary General’s report until July, the IMF probably until April, is there urgency there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe there is urgency. The idea for this particular meeting, the first time in 47 years we have had a meeting of the Security Council at Heads of Government level, that idea has been produced and acted upon very speedily, the response from the governments concerned has been very speedy, the Heads of Government have come. Now I believe that is an indication of the importance that people give to this meeting and taking the opportunities that exist at present to make this a safer world. That is why disarmament, non-proliferation and matters of this sort are the very substance of what is being discussed today.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with UN Secretary General – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the United Nations Secretary General, Mr Boutros Ghali, in New York on Friday 31st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I proposed this meeting because it seemed to me that the time was right, with a new Secretary General, with Russia taking her seat in the Security Council, it seemed to me that the time was right for the Council to meet at the highest level to reaffirm its commitment to peace-keeping and to peace-making.

    There is of course a symbolic significance in the meeting, to have round the same table the Heads of State or Government of China, Russia, the United States, France and Britain for the first time in the history of the United Nations symbolises the transformation from confrontation to cooperation in the work of the organisation.

    Over the last few years that transformation has enabled us to unite to free Kuwait; to bring independence to Namibia after decades of frustrated negotiations; to start the peace process in Cambodia; and to tackle other international disputes.

    So to an extent this meeting was a celebration of the fact that the Charter of the United Nations has once again become the handbook, the handbook, of those whose job it is to make the peace and keep the peace, and that is the handbook that can do it.

    Gone are the days, I hope forever, when the United Nations was the last body that you turned to for effective action. Now it is the first body, as we have seen only this month over Lockerbie and as we see day to day as the screw of economic sanctions is turned on Saddam Hussein and as the international commission slowly but certainly uncovers evidence of his weapons of mass destruction and then destroys them.

    In a world which is more hopeful than for many years, but still unstable, we need an organisation that can settle disputes, contain conflicts and keep the peace. The United Nations is that organisation. And the reason for coming here at Head of Government level was to demonstrate our commitment to that organisation.

    You will have heard the statement which I read out on behalf of members of the Council. In it we pledge ourselves to collective security, international law and our commitments under the United Nations Charter to resolve disputes peacefully, to fight against terrorism, to pursue arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation and to conclude a chemical weapons convention in 1992.

    That statement, as ever, is written in the polite language of diplomacy. But it contains a hard cutting edge that can be used against those who breach their obligations. The document states that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction constitutes a threat to international peace and security. That places the issue firmly within the confines of the Security Council with scope for action to that end. Member States are committed to take action to prevent the spread of technology related to weapons of mass destruction. The statement reinforces the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Authority and it commits the Council to take action in cases of violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty notified to them by the International Atomic Energy Authority.

    The statement also asks the Secretary General to recommend how we can strengthen the United Nations’ action in preventative diplomacy, peace-making and peace-keeping. And this includes the use of the good offices of the Secretary General.

    Under Article 99 of the treaty he is authorised to bring to the attention of the Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. That article has been little used, partly because in the days of the Cold War the Secretary General’s role was heavily constrained by the former Soviet Union. Those old constraints no longer apply.

    The statement also includes a number of welcome references to human rights, to progress in democracy and responsive forms of government, to election monitoring, to human rights verification, and in the very last words of the declaration, to the promotion of a better life for all in larger freedom.

    Those are substantial achievements. The most substantive achievement of all is that Heads of Government of countries whose arsenals could between them destroy the world have met as colleagues and partners in a common enterprise to make the world a safer place. And they did so here today under the auspices of the United Nations.

    MR GHALI:

    I have just a few words. I have spent only four weeks as Secretary General in this institution and I am still a beginner. But those four weeks I have spent in this organisation show: (1) that there is a political will to play a role in international affairs; (2) that the Security Council will not act unless there is a consensus and that all the decisions which have been adopted during this month have been taken by consensus, after deliberation, and this deliberation proved that we have reached a degree of democratic [Indistinct] in the Security Council.

    And I just want again to thank the Prime Minister of Great Britain for this summit meeting because the summit meeting will help me in my new role, will assist me in the new function and as he mentioned Article 99, I hope not to use very often this article, but in case I will see that there is a necessity to use Article 99 I assure you that I will not hesitate to use this prerogative.

    Once more I want to thank the Prime Minister of Great Britain for this summit meeting here in New York.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION (Mr Osborne):

    On behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association I would like to welcome you as our guest at this press conference. In terms of a consistent worldwide peace-keeping effort, President Mitterrand suggested in his speech that a more effective role be given to the UN military staff committee and even volunteering to contribute some 1,000 peace-keeping troops to such an effort. Would the United Kingdom also support such an effort and would you also contribute troops to a peace-keeping effort. I would also like to ask the Secretary General if he would respond, does he see this as a proposal which should be encouraged in the agenda of his reforms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think this is a proposal that should be examined, but I would prefer not to commit myself to any proposal until we have seen the Secretary General’s report, we have invited him today to report, he has a very wide remit to report, to come back on what he believes is the right way for us to proceed. We know what the objectives are: better peace-keeping, better peace-making. I would prefer to see the Secretary General’s report before we can make up our mind as to what particular actions, either singly or perhaps a whole cluster of actions, are necessary in order to meet that objective. This is certainly one that should be considered.

    MR GHALI:

    I will give my response on 1 July because according to the decisions which have been taken, I have to present my report before 1 July.

    QUESTION:

    Are there any significant changes in the final statement from the first draft or the second draft prepared by you. And if so, would you like to mention one or two by way of illustration?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is one of the more optimistic questions I have ever had I think. The answer is that there are not really significant changes between the drafts, there are minor changes when you have 15 draftsmen sitting round the table in order to agree a document that affects national sensitivities as well as an international commitment, there are always going to be drafting changes. And of course that was the case, some of them were additions, some of them were minor drafting changes. But there were no changes of a real and substantive nature between the earlier drafts and the later one, except that the later one is in many ways a good deal sharper and tougher in its commitments than the earlier drafts were. This is altogether a stronger, more forceful, document than we anticipated it would be possible to agree a few weeks ago, or even perhaps a few days ago.

    QUESTION:

    Do you not find it is a little bit strange that the Secretary General of the UN was not invited to the Moscow conference while you are inviting all the Heads of States to meet in the Security Council and to give a push to the role of the Security Council and the United Nations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I happen to believe that the role of the United Nations is very important, it has changed and is changing. There was a time when the role of the United Nations was effectively stuck in the mud by the differences that often appeared between some of the larger and more powerful states in the world, it rendered agreements in the Security Council in particular, amongst the Permanent Five in particular, very difficult to achieve.

    That is no longer the case and the effect of those changes is that we are now in the position to put the United Nations closer towards the objectives and goals of its original founders when the charter was devised than we have ever been at any stage before. That opportunity was clear to the United Kingdom and we wish to take the chance afforded by our Presidency of the Security Council to bring together Heads of Government in order to give a particular push to that objective. I think today we have actually been successful in that.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, The Times):

    [Inaudible] the Security Council of the need for further economic support for Russia, how soon do you think you will be able to persuade the United States in particular and other G7 members to back a stabilisation fund for the rouble?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first objective before anyone can produce a stabilisation fund, or indeed any other form of support, there is no reason to suppose that will be the only nature of support required, but the first and necessary preliminary is for Russia to become members of the International Monetary Fund.

    At a meeting a week or so ago the United Kingdom pushed for that to be concluded as soon as possible and not later than April. That is also the position of the United States. But as to what help follows after membership of Russia in the International Monetary Fund, that is a matter that will be determined then.

    And I believe that two things will happen when they become members of the IMF: firstly they will have access to the advice and assistance that the IMF are uniquely well placed to provide; but secondly as members they will also be enabled to receive the significant financial assistance that I believe they are likely to need in the months ahead. So the first thing is to get them in the IMF and then to agree precisely the scale and nature of the assistance they require. If it can be done earlier than April I would like it done earlier than April and it is my impression that that is also the view of the United States government.

    QUESTION:

    You have been given extensive new tasks to perform on the world scene in peace-making, but nothing has been mentioned about the funds that will be necessary to support this operation and it is obvious that there is plenty of money due to the UN because of delinquency. Have you given any thought as to how the bill is to be filled and footed according to your outline?

    MR GHALI:

    Yes, I had the occasion to discuss this with the different leaders this morning and they promised to help us to solve the financial problem of the United Nations. As you know, there is a new special fund which has been created and a new coordinator for humanitarian assistance will be appointed in the next few weeks and we hope to receive already 50 million dollars, Great Britain has pledged 5 million dollars, different other members of the United Nations will contribute to this fund and there are many other funds which will be created and I believe, I am sure that we will be able to overcome the financial difficulty of this house in the next few weeks.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say firstly in response to that that my country is not behind in its commitments to the United Nations and I do not anticipate it will become so in the future.

    I hope that one of the effects of today’s meeting and the Secretary General’s forthcoming report will encourage members of the United Nations and their respective legislative assemblies to meet the commitments that they have and pay the money that is due to the United Nations.

    QUESTION:

    How far does this apply to the Middle East problem and the solution of Jerusalem, as the King of Morocco wisely stated today? And if I may ask the Secretary General what he meant by the small states can play a large constructive role?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can answer my part of the question I think very speedily. It is of course United Nations resolutions that are the basis of the peace process, so the role of the United Nations is I think both central and critical.

    MR GHALI:

    Concerning my question, I believe and I have said this morning that a small state with political will and political imagination can contribute a lot to play a role in international affairs and that what is important is the political will. And without naming states, you have small states during the last 50 years which have played very important roles in international affairs and you may have a powerful state who, for reasons connected to their own policy, are not interested to play a role in international affairs. So the political will, I will say, and the political imagination within the United Nations is as important as the economic and military power of the states.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] we believe that he has declared war on the people of Cuba, is there any consideration being given to the crisis in Cuba by the Security Council?

    MR GHALI:

    No we have not discussed this and nobody asked to discuss this problem at the Security level.

    QUESTION (Independent):

    The Prime Minister this morning said that he wanted to see a resolution before the UN about Lockerbie, could he say something about the nature of the resolution he would like to see brought to the UN on the Lockerbie affair, and could he say something about President Yeltsin’s views that in fact human rights should have been given more prominence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first point, we are of course still waiting a response to the first resolution and it is not until we have received that response, which I hope will not be long delayed, that we can determine what other action and whether another United Nations resolution is required.

    If the response is negative, as conceivably it will be, then I think it will be desirable to seek a further resolution from the United Nations and I would hope that would not be too long delayed. But at the moment that is speculation, we have not yet received a response.

    MR GHALI:

    I may just add that I was requested by the Security Council to get in contact with the Libyan government, we sent an Under Secretary of the United Nations with a personal message to the Libyan leader and we received an oral answer saying that they are ready to cooperate with the United Nations. In fact the message was to implement the resolution which had been decided by the United Nations and not a cooperation with the United Nations, thus I asked the Libyan representative to return back to Tripoli and he returned and he is now in Tripoli to give further information concerning what the Libyan authority means by cooperation with the United Nations because I was request the implementation of the resolution which had been adopted by the Security Council. I hope to receive an answer in the next few days from the Special Representative of the Libyan government.

    QUESTION:

    What is the status of the declaration at this time, is it a consensus document? The Indian Prime Minister openly disagreed with the nuclear non-proliferation part of it, whereas he disagreed about whether it should be taken on a global level or on a regional level?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, he agreed the document. What Prime Minister Rao said was that there were some other things he would have liked to have been in there as well but that he agreed with the document as it is produced. So he is as committed to what is in the document as I am and as is every other member of the Security Council who was here today. And the Prime Minister made that very clear in his contribution this afternoon.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible.]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, he wished to add other things, he did not disassociate himself from what was in the agreement, he wished to add other things that were not part of the consensus and are not in the agreement.

    QUESTION:

    What would be the impact of this meeting in the future and are you going to institutionalise it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This was quite literally an extraordinary meeting of the Security Council, there is no intention of institutionalising a meeting at Heads of State and government, though I would hope now we have found that it is a useful instrument, that if it is necessary to reconvene at that level I would hope people would feel free to do so. But I do not immediately think that it is going to be necessary regularly, nor do I think it would necessarily be desirable to do it regularly. The fact that it is such an unusual occurrence has added weight to the decisions that have been made today.

    QUESTION:

    The Secretary General proposed that the Council should meet at summit level periodically, did you discuss this issue during lunch and what issues were dealt with during lunch?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No we did not discuss that during luncheon, the Secretary General and I were seated too far apart from one another over luncheon to discuss that, we would have needed a megaphone. It was a totally social luncheon and we did not discuss it on that occasion. But there will be many opportunities for the Secretary General and I, and indeed other members of the Security Council, to discuss that and a range of other matters, but not today.

    QUESTION (Aviation Week Magazine):

    Mr Yeltsin’s spokesman earlier today indicated that Mr Yeltsin solicited your cooperation in programmes to prevent the brain drain of nuclear programme specialists from the Soviet Union and to convert nuclear warhead material to nuclear fuel. Can you share what was discussed and what your views are on those programmes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Up to a point yes. We did discuss that in the four hours of discussion we had in London yesterday and we have agreed to send a team to Russia to examine what we might do to assist, and in particular what we might do to assist nuclear fuel used in weaponry to be used more satisfactorily for peaceful and for civilian methods. We are going to send a team to talk to the Russians to see how we can help.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible.]

    MR GHALI:

    I received last night a long report of Under Secretary Goulding who went to Yugoslavia, went to Zagreb and to Belgrade. I hope to have a meeting in the next few days with the Special Representative, Mr Cyrus Vance, and with what will be the result of those meetings I will submit a report to the Security Council, but it is too early to say what will be the next step.

    We have already, as you know, 50 observers there and are cooperating with the monitors of the European Community, we are in contact with the European Community, our approach is that we want to cooperate with the European Community in finding a solution, the role of the European Community being the political solution of the problem, the role of the United Nations being maintaining the ceasefire and peace-keeping forces. But it is too early to say what will be done as a second step, we must have a few meetings among our collaborators and then we will decide and we will present a report to the Security Council on what we have reached on this problem.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, I am sure you are committed to the new world order and under the new world order the Baltic States got their independence. How about those people who are struggling for their independence like Kashmiri people and the people of the Sikh community. And what are you doing to maintain the human rights of the minorities in different countries like India?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have made my concern about human rights known both publicly and privately on a number of occasions in the past. I certainly took the opportunity of raising them, for example, when I was in Beijing both publicly and privately and I have raised them elsewhere. I do not want to comment on one of the many areas where human rights may be an issue except to say that I think it is becoming increasingly apparent to everyone that the world has a closer and more beady eye on the human rights records of nations today than it has ever done at any stage in the past. And where the United Nations these days finds itself involved in peace-making operations, the position of human rights is an important matter that the United Nations keeps under control, keeps its eye on and takes into account in the proposals that it makes. I am sure that is the right way.

    In terms of the general position on human rights, the best way to continue to ensure that human rights records of a large number of countries are improved is by peer pressure both within the United Nations and beyond the United Nations. And I think for that reason that it is quite right for political leaders and other leaders to speak out and speak out clearly and unequivocally when they see human rights abuses. I am glad to say that increasingly that is happening.

    QUESTION:

    Are you willing to support further independence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to get drawn into the Kashmiri problem, that has not been a subject for today.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Secretary General’s Lunch – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Secretary General’s Lunch at a Special Meeting of the UN Security Council on 31st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Secretary-General, Your Majesty, Distinguished Heads of State and Government, Your Excellencies.

    At first sight it is extraordinary that in nearly 47 years this should be the first time that the United Nations Security Council has met at the level of Head of State or Government. The reason is obvious: for at least 40 years since the Charter was signed in San Francisco a meeting like this would have been hard to imagine and impossible to arrange.

    There is a temptation to look back on the Cold War as a period of stability. It was not. And its pernicious effects were felt in all our countries.
    A former Soviet Ambassador to London, who worked for President Khrushchev, said that, at the height of the Cuban missile crisis, a report reached Khrushchev by telephone that President Kennedy had gone to hear Mass in Washington. Khrushchev had, commented to his officials that that was good news. It meant that for at least the next hour the United States would not launch a nuclear strike against Moscow. We should never forget how close we came to mutual destruction.

    No-one who lived through those events can forget the tension of those times. It affected us all in different ways and no country, developed and developing, was immune.

    During those years the Security Council had a role but it was too often a negative one. The Council was an arena for the pursuit of conflict by verbal means and too rarely the scene of effective action on behalf of the international community.

    That scene is now transformed. Of course there are differences. But we meet here, not as adversaries, but as partners in a common enterprise.

    Of course the bright dawn of 1989 has been followed by the colder light of day. Of course there is instability. We have after all shaken the foundations on which many of our post-war assumptions were built. But our meeting today exemplifies a new trend in international relations: the will to rally round, to solve problems, not to exploit them.

    We have learned painfully that we are one world, and quite a small one. That we cannot divide the world into them and us. Just us. This morning we welcomed the end of the Cold War. That is not just good news for East/West relations. We can now focus as partners on the needs and difficulties of the South. The developing countries make a distinctive, effective contribution to the United Nations in the Security Council and elsewhere. Collective security is precisely that. If it is to benefit all of us, it must be a partnership between us all.

    This meeting arose out of an idea first put forward by President Mitterrand and made timely by Russia’s assumption of her seat on the Security Council and by the election of a new Secretary General. I believe it is right for us to meet to reaffirm at the highest level our commitment to peace-keeping and peace-making. A great burden of responsibility rests at present on President Yeltsin. I hope he will take back from this meeting the message to the people of Russia and of the new Commonwealth that the rest of the world community are not just interested spectators of great events. Russia has a crucial world role to play. Her involvement is vital to international stability. We in turn must help her to create the economic stability which underpins democracy and reform.

    Fifteen leaders meeting for one day cannot determine every UN issue. But we can send a powerful signal. By meeting we show support for the work of the UN and its new Secretary-General to investigate ways in which the UN’s work can be strengthened. I hope today we can agree that.

    Valuable work needs careful preparation. This meeting does not claim to be the culmination of an initiative. It is a unique response to a unique historical coincidence. But the meeting can be the beginning of a process to prepare the UN for new tasks and challenges.

    The international agenda is shifting from crisis management – in which the UN has for so long played a distinguished role – to crisis prevention. The aim must be to equip the UN to lead in crisis prevention.

    Under Dr. Boutros Ghali’s experienced hand, I am confident the UN will rise to the challenge. Let us join with him whole-heartedly in the enterprise ahead.

  • Mr Major’s Opening Remarks to the UN Security Council – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening remarks to the United Nations Security Council, held in New York on 31st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The 3046th meeting of the Security Council is now called to order.

    May I turn firstly please to the adoption of the Agenda. The Provisional Agenda for the meeting is before the Council. Unless I hear any objection, I shall consider the Agenda is adopted.

    If there is no objection, the Agenda is adopted.

    The Security Council will now begin its consideration of Item 2 of the Agenda and with the permission of colleagues, I will make a brief introductory statement to our meeting today.

    This is a unique meeting. We are meeting at a time of momentous change. Just a year ago, the Council met the challenge of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the Council did that with great success but today we face new challenges and to set a new course in tackling them it is right, I believe, that we should meet for the first time ever at the level of Heads of State and Government. Today, we must show that the Security Council is working with a common purpose.

    I welcome very much the presence today of so many Heads of State and Government. It is proof of the importance we all attach to the United Nations and of our commitment to the ideals of the United Nations. We come today from all parts of the world. Each of our countries has its own characteristics, its own concerns but we are united in one particular aspect: we are united by a commitment to strengthen the wider community to which we belong, to reinforce collective security and to maintain international peace and security.

    In convening this Extraordinary Meeting this morning, I intended that our discussion could serve four important purposes:

    Firstly, our presence today marks a turning point in the world and at the United Nations. On the international scene, we have witnessed the end of the Cold War; member states of this Organisation have divided and reformed themselves. This presents immense opportunities but it carries with it also new risks. At the United Nations, the term of office of Mr. Perez de Cuellar has come to a close. He has served the international community for many years with outstanding distinction and I am delighted to be able to thank him for that work. We are here not only to wish his successor, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, well but to give him our full backing in carrying out his mandate. A new situation in the world needs new ideas and a new impetus.

    Second, we should today reaffirm our attachment to the principle of collective security and to the resolution of disputes in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. We should send a clear signal that it is through the United Nations and its Security Council that we intend to deal with threats to international peace and security.

    Thirdly today, we should consider anew the means by which collective security is upheld through the United Nations and consider how best to update and to develop them. It is time to review all the instruments at our disposal: preventive action; to avert crises by monitoring and addressing the causes of conflict; peace-making, to restore peace by diplomatic means; peace-keeping, to reduce tensions, to consolidate and underpin efforts to restore peace. These, I believe, are the matters that we should consider in our meeting today and even today as we meet here, peace-keeping operations are under way in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, Asia and Europe.

    The need is not likely to decrease in the future. We must consider how we can enhance the United Nations ability to respond effectively and ensure that it has the necessary resources both financial and material to enable it to do so. In all of these, of course, the role of the Secretary-General is vital.

    Fourthly today, we should commit ourselves anew to upholding international peace and security through reinforced measures of arms control. Activity to restrain the accumulation and transfer of arms, to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, that affects all members of the United Nations. Arms control policy has become genuinely global. The role of this Organisation – not just the Security Council but the whole of this Organisation – is an increasingly important one.

    As we meet to consider the specific responsibilities of the Security Council, the wider concerns of the international community even if we shall not discuss all of them today are also in our minds. It is of course true that without economic development and prosperity we cannot hope to achieve lasting peace and stability but it is every bit as true that only when conditions of security and peace are assured can sustained economic development take place; both are needed and only when we have both can resources be directed to where they are so urgently needed, towards the economic and social needs of the world’s population.

    The opening line of our Charter – the Charter of the United Nations – does not talk about states or governments, it talks about people. The world now has the best chance for peace, security and development since the founding of the United Nations, I hope, like the founders of the United Nations themselves, that we can today renew the resolve enshrined in the Charter, the resolve to combine our efforts to accomplish the aims of the Charter in the interests of all the people that we are privileged to represent. That is our role and I wish the Council well in its work today.

    Members of the Council, we have a great deal to do today. In accordance with custom, with your agreement, I shall make my National Statement when all other colleagues have spoken but we may now, I think, commence our debate and I invite the Secretary-General to address us.

  • PMQT – 14 January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

    Mr. Douglas : Will the Prime Minister take some time today to examine his pledge not to turn his back on Lanarkshire? Will he give a clear indication of the earnestness of that pledge by agreeing to meet the shop stewards of Dalzell plant, who have indicated that they have a plan guaranteeing the effectiveness of their own plant, together with continued steel production in Scotland? Does he accept that he has an obligation to honour that pledge by examining every possible avenue to maintain steel production in Scotland, and in particular not to turn his back on a plan which has shown great effectiveness?

    The Prime Minister : I made my position clear in Scotland some time ago. We certainly would not abandon the people of north Lanarkshire. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we shall be seeking agreement from the European Community to establish an enterprise zone such as those which, in other parts, have been very successful. He will also know that in the past year we have provided about £120 million extra assistance for north Lanarkshire through the Scottish Enterprise fund, East Kilbride development corporation, the iron and steel employees readaption benefit scheme, the Scottish Development Agency and much else. I am sure that either my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be happy to meet the shop stewards in Dalzell.

    Mr. Thurnham : Does my right hon. Friend accept that, at a time of great international instability, the whole country welcomes his decision as chairman of the United Nations Security Council to call a meeting of that council later this month? Does not the acceptance of his invitation by President Bush, President Yeltsin, President Mitterrand and other world leaders prove the importance of that meeting? Is it not an insult to world leaders that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) should describe that as grubbing around for a photo opportunity?

    The Prime Minister : We have had a very favourable response from Heads of Government, all of whom share our view that the meeting offers a unique opportunity to reinforce the role of the United Nations as a peacemaker and peacekeeper, to look at the role that they can play in both disarmament and non-proliferation, and to reinforce the role that they can play in terms of improving good government and human rights records in a large number of countries. There has been unanimous acceptance by Heads of State and Government among Security Council members to attend. I hope and believe that it will be a useful and worthwhile occasion.

     

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

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

    Mr. Bidwell : Is the Prime Minister aware that conflicting views about the future of the railways are coming from No. 10 Downing street and from the Secretary of State for Transport? It is said that the Prime Minister has a view. May the House hear it today? There is an old saying, “This is no way to run a railway”–I suggest that this is no way to run a Government either.

    The Prime Minister : On a non-controversial note, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his 75th birthday today.

    We are discussing within government the right way to take forward the privatisation of British Railways. Our aim is to ensure that passengers get a better deal as a result. We believe that the way to do that is to expose the railways to private sector disciplines. That is what we are discussing. In due course, when we have discussed the detail of how that will be brought about, we shall make a public statement.

    Mr. Lawrence : Since raising the quality of life of the British people is one of the main aims of my right hon. Friend’s Government, can we count on his support for my National Lottery Bill?

    The Prime Minister : An important debate on my hon. and learned Friend’s Bill is scheduled for this Friday. The Under Secretary of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), will make the Government’s position clear in that debate.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to confirm that it is still his view that, as he put it in his own words just a few weeks ago,

    “tax cuts in the Budget”

    would be “unwise”, would “recreate problems” and would be “fools’ gold”?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman has been misled. What I said in the interview in Harare, from which he has quoted, was that a reduction in interest rates just to stimulate the economy would be fools’ gold–as it would be. However, to help the right hon. Gentleman, I went on to add that if there was a prospect of tax reductions, we would take it and give people the opportunity to spend their money in their own interests.

    Mr. Kinnock : Everyone will have the opportunity to check the words used in that interview and everyone will have the opportunity to ask why, if those words are so wrong, they have not been corrected before now. Does not the Prime Minister recall saying in precise terms that tax cuts in the Budget before the election–as he is precisely quoted as saying–would be “unwise”, would “recreate problems”, would be “unfair”, would “hurt” people and would be “economic tricks”– [Interruption.] Is it not clear– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : As the hopes of Conservative Members fade, so their voices grow louder.

    Is it not clear that what was fools’ gold in October is fools’ gold in January and would be fools’ gold in March?

    The Prime Minister : As I said to the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago–clearly, he was not listening –the quotation that he used refers to a reduction in interest rates, not to a reduction in taxation. The right hon. Gentleman can check the quote–perhaps he should have done so before using it inaccurately. When it is prudent to make tax reductions, we shall make them, because we believe that people are better able to look after their own interests with their own money than any Government, however benevolent, would be. It is the right hon. Gentleman’s policy to increase taxation. He proposes the sharpest increases in taxes that we have had in peacetime since the war. That is expressly not the policy of this Government.

    Mr. Kinnock : The right hon. Gentleman heads the Government who have imposed the highest tax burden in history on British families. He is the head of the party of high taxation. Why has he not the courage to stand by the words that he gave to his interviewer just a few months ago?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman should not repeat what he has twice been told is incorrect. If he is concerned about the level of taxation, he might perhaps explain to the country why he proposes to increase the rate of taxation if given the chance. He might also explain why his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has suggested a luxury rate of value added tax, after all that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), has said in recent weeks.

    Mr. Mills : Does my right hon. Friend recall those heady days in the early 1980s when, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), we changed industrial relations law? That has led to fewer days lost due to industrial action in Britain than in many of our competitor countries in Europe and abroad. Has my right hon. Friend read the recent report? Has he any comments? Will he continue to change industrial relations legislation to take further the Conservative progress which has helped democracy within trade unions and reduced the number of days lost to strikes?

    The Prime Minister : There is no doubt that, as a result of the trade union reforms in the last decade, we have a far better record of industrial relations than our competitors elsewhere or than previously in Britain. When and where appropriate, we shall continue to make further improvements.

     

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

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

    Mr. Fraser : Has the Prime Minister noted the remarks of the Minister for Public Transport about one class of service for business men and another, cheap and cheerful class of service, for typists? Despite the Minister’s apology, does not that statement, accurately sum up the Government’s policy on public services such as housing, education and health? The cheap and cheerful version of the service is hardly ever likely to be used by Cabinet Ministers or their families.

    The Prime Minister : That is uncharacteristic, and I would not have expressed myself as my hon. Friend did. My hon. Friend has subsequently made it clear that he regrets expressing his views in that way. If every politician in government or opposition were forced to apologise for injudicious remarks, few of us would be doing anything else.

     

    Q4. Mr. Michael Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Brown : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as a result of discussions between the American company Kimberley Clarke and the Department of Trade and Industry, it is likely that a factory employing 800 people is to be built in my constituency? Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of the DTI investment and the number of jobs to be created? Will he confirm that that is Conservative industrial policy working to the benefit of my constituency in particular and the country in general?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to hear of the proposed investment and job creation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The amount of grant offered is, of course, a confidential matter between the Department and the company. On the other specific questions that my hon. Friend asks, I will make inquiries and write to him. He is entirely right that inward investment is created by the right policies of deregulation and low taxation. The enormous amount of inward investment that we have seen in recent years would be lost if those policies were reversed.

    Mr. Ashdown : Further to the Prime Minister’s previous answer, does he not realise that, while he and his Chancellor argue about the Budget, and while his Cabinet is split on the matter, there is widespread public support for the view that at this time investment in the nation’s future should come before cuts in the basic rates of tax? Is the Prime Minister saying that he disagrees with that view?

    The Prime Minister : I agree entirely with the importance of investment. Where I might disagree with the right hon. Gentleman is that I do not believe that investment is increased by increasing taxes.

     

    Q5. Mr. Squire : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

    Mr. Squire : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospect of a dictator or an irresponsible third-world country acquiring any of the 27,000 nuclear weapons previously controlled by the Soviet Union is literally a terrifying thought? Against that background, does he further agree that to maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent is as important and essential today as it ever has been?

    The Prime Minister : I do agree with my hon. Friend on that point. The end of the Soviet empire creates a large number of opportunities, but also some dangers. We have to be prepared for both. The diminished threat to NATO gives us the opportunity to make prudent reductions in defence, but they must be prudent and it would at this stage be imprudent to lift our nuclear shield in any way.

    Mr. Faulds : Why did the Prime Minister not have the courtesy to respond to a pre-Christmas appeal by Church leaders that he should make a statement– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Faulds rose–[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The House is becoming disorderly.

    Mr. Faulds rose–[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has as much right to express his view as any other Member of the House.

    Mr. Faulds : Hon. Members seem embarrassed by good works. Why did the Prime Minister not have the courtesy to respond to a pre-Christmas appeal by Church leaders for him to make a statement urging stores not to break the Sunday trading laws? Did he simply lack the moral courage?

    The Prime Minister : I have indicated the Government’s position on Sunday trading laws in the House on a number of occasions. I am interested to note the hon. Gentleman’s concern on behalf of the Churches. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not mention it to me on new year’s day when we had lunch together.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with UN Secretary General – 13 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the UN Secretary General, Mr Boutros Boutros Ghali, in London on Monday 13th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I was very pleased this afternoon to be able to welcome the Secretary General to London and to congratulate him at an early stage in his new appointment as Secretary General of the United Nations.

    We have had the opportunity this afternoon of a very wide ranging discussion on many of the matters of concern to the UN at present and there are of course a vast range of those. In particular I have been able to finalise with the Secretary General the arrangements for the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Security Council, which I can now confirm will be on 31 January.

    We now have confirmation from all the Heads of State and Government that they will be present on this occasion and it will give us an early opportunity in the Secretary General’s tenure to meet and to look at some of the issues of great importance to us all at present.

    I can in particular confirm that President Yeltsin will be attending and this of course will be the first occasion he will have had to attend such a meeting in his new capacity.

    In the Extraordinary General Meeting we see several matters that need to be addressed as being of particular importance. The first of those is the United Nations’ role as a peace-maker, a peace-keeper and as a settler of disputes. We will wish to look and examine how that can be enhanced with the vast number of regional conflicts that exist at present.

    The second area of particular importance will be the question of disarmament and non-proliferation and the very important role that the United Nations has to play in that.

    And the third continuing area of importance will be to stress yet again the very great importance that the United Nations generally gives to the maintenance of good government and human rights.

    I am very pleased that this special General Meeting is coming about. I do not claim it as an original idea, the original concept of this was President Mitterrand’s some months ago. But I am confident from the warm response it had from people around the world that it is an idea whose time has come.

    So these are the matters we have had the opportunity to discuss this afternoon and I am very grateful to the Secretary General for joining me. He now perhaps may care to say a word or two.

    MR GHALI:

    I just want to thank the Prime Minister for the Summit meeting of the members of the Security Council which will be held at the end of the month in New York and I believe that this summit meeting will be very useful for the United Nations, for the Secretariat of the United Nations and for the new mission of the United Nations – promoting peace, settling peacefully international disputes, contributing to peace-keeping, peace-making and peace-building, and promote human rights and democratic institutions in the different countries of the world. The summit meeting will certainly help me personally in my new job and I want again to thank the Prime Minister for proposing this meeting and I am sure that this meeting will be a success and will contribute to the reinforcement of peace and security all over the world.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, is President Yeltsin coming to London first?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I spoke to President Yeltsin at length on Friday afternoon and I invited him to London. In principle he would like to come, there are a lot of things happening at the moment, we are looking at the logistics to see if it is possible on that particular date. But if he cannot come on 30 January I hope he will come at an early date, but the 30th is not yet finalised.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, it is your contention, is it not, that it is only the Conservatives who can manage these changes for Britain that you are going to discuss at the Security Council in the way that Britain needs. Secretary General, could you assess Britain’s future role in the United Nations and do you share any worries about a change of government?

    MR GHALI:

    The United Nations is cooperating with Great Britain and this is what is important for the United Nations.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, is it your belief that only the Conservatives can fulfil the proper role in the UN?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You heard the Secretary General’s reply, you heard what I had to say, this is not an occasion for that sort of remark.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Ghali, could you answer this question in Arabic, if the Prime Minister does not mind. There is news today that there is an overall plan to solve the hostage dispute in the Middle East, do you have any comment on that?

    MR GHALI:

    No I have no comment, the United Nations is trying very hard to contribute to the release of the hostages, there are still two more hostages in the Middle East and this is one of the duties of the United Nations that my predecessor had played a very important role in this, and we intend to continue to do our best to release all the hostages in the Middle East and outside the Middle East also.

  • 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!

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 February 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th February 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    United Kingdom 2000

    Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total funding to date of the United Kingdom 2000 initiative set up by his predecessor under the chairmanship of Mr. Richard Branson; which voluntary organisations have been involved; what have been the achievements of the initiative ; whether he has any further proposals to develop this initiative; and whether he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Total Government funding to March 1991 will be £9.434 million. The partner voluntary organisations in England are the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, the Civic Trust, Community Service Volunteers, Groundwork, Friends of the Earth and the Royal Society for Nature Conservation. In Wales the organisations involved are the same apart from the Civic Trust, and in addition the Keep Wales Tidy Campaign. In Scotland, the organisations are the Scottish Wildlife Trust, Scottish Conservation Projects, Community Service Volunteers and Keep Scotland Beautiful.

    The main achievements have been high-quality, practical environmental improvement projects, training and work experience together with the creation of new environmental enterprises. This work has been carried out in partnership with the public and private sectors. In 1989-90 there were 717 projects which generated 7,819 training places and 54,218 volunteers and which attracted £2,423 million support from the private sector.

    In England United Kingdom 2000 phase 2 began on 31 March 1991 and, subject to performance, the voluntary organisations will continue to receive grant until March 1993. United Kingdom 2000 (Scotland) will be launched as a company limited by guarantee in April 1991. The initiative in Wales has recently been fully reviewed ; the next steps are now under consideration.

     

    United Nations

    Mr. Wray : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make it his policy to put forward proposals to amend the United Nations charter to provide for periodic elections of all members of the United Nations Security Council; (2) if he will make it his policy to put forward proposals to amend the United Nations charter to provide that United Nations Security Council members should have veto powers; (3) if he will make it his policy to put forward proposals to amend the United Nations charter to provide that in the event of war waged in the name of the United Nations basic decisions are taken by all member countries of the United Nations with an ad hoc executive committee to supervise the conduct of hostilities by the armed forces acting for the United Nations.

    The Prime Minister : No. The Government do not believe that reform of the United Nations charter is either necessary or desirable.

    Mr. Wray : To ask the Prime Minister when he expects the United Nations Security Council to meet to discuss the conduct of the war in the Persian Gulf.

    The Prime Minister : The United Nations Security Council has met frequently since the outbreak of hostilities in the Gulf on 2 August, most recently in informal consultations on 8 February.

     

    Lanarkshire

    Mr. Tom Clarke : To ask the Prime Minister what specific plans he has to improve investment in Lanarkshire.

    The Prime Minister : The Lanarkshire working group, which met last month, will identify the main constraints to revitalising the Lanarkshire economy and recommend measures to resolve those problems. Investment in Lanarkshire from the private and public sector, is among the working group’s concerns. The working group expects to report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland around the end of April.

     

    Pensioners

    Mr. Beggs : To ask the Prime Minister what is the estimated additional cost incurred weekly by pensioners in Northern Ireland for heating, lighting and travel when expenditure is compared with that of pensioners in a comparable region in Great Britain.

    The Prime Minister : Information on the expenditure of pensioner households on heating, lighting and travel is available at household level from the family expenditure survey. Northern Ireland compares with Wales in terms of average normal weekly disposable income for all households, including pensioner households. The table provides information from the amalgamated results of the 1988-89 family expenditure survey for pensioner households.

     

    1851 Exhibition

    Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Prime Minister when the holder of his office last attended a meeting of the royal commissioners for the exhibition of 1851.

    The Prime Minister : I am not aware of such a meeting.

     

    Probation Officers, Liverpool

    Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the probation officer based at Liverpool about salaries ; and what reply he has sent.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has received representations from seven probation officers from Merseyside about probation officers’ salaries. They either have received or will receive official replies.

     

    Correspondence

    Mr. Terry Davis : To ask the Prime Minister whether the policy of the Government with regard to correspondence between hon. Members and officials remains as set out in the letter from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, of 18 May 1989.

    The Prime Minister : It is for Ministers in each Department to decide how correspondence will be handled. Following the recent scrutiny of ministerial correspondence, Departments are considering how to assist Members of Parliament to direct their inquiries to the point which is best able to give them a fast, informed and helpful reply.

    The Government reply to the eighth report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee–Cmnd 1263–states that Ministers will normally ask the chief executive of an agency to reply to letters that concern day-to-day operational matters delegated to the agency.

     

    East Timor

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy towards the Timor Gap agreement between Indonesia and Australia; and whether this agreement was discussed during his telephone conversation with Prime Minister Hawke of Australia on 5 February.

    The Prime Minister : The Timor Gap agreement is a matter between Indonesia and Australia, who recognised East Timor’s incorporation into Indonesia in 1979. The agreement in no way affects our own stance on recognition. I have not discussed the agreement with Prime Minister Hawke.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 12 February.

    The Prime Minister : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also called on Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and presented her with a gift from the Cabinet to mark her 90th year. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

     

    The Gulf

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken by allied bombing sorties over Iraq to avoid disruption of the ecological balance of the marshes in the River Euphrates delta and to the habitat of the striped hyenas, jackals and wolves of the western desert of Iraq and northern Saudi Arabia.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 8 February 1991] : Allied aircrews have instructions to attack only military targets which could pose a threat to allied forces or facilities supporting Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. The missions are carefully planned to minimise the risk of damage to other areas.

     

    Nuclear Test Veterans

    Mr. Higgins : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Worthing on 4 December 1990, Official Report, column 17, by what process British nuclear test veterans may seek to establish the Crown’s legal liability for compensation for the effects of radiation while serving in Her Majesty’s forces.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 11 February 1991] : The process to establish the Crown’s legal liability in this matter is the need, in common law, to show that participants in the test programme had been exposed to radiation due to Ministry of Defence negligence and that such exposure caused them harm. The Government commissioned a study by the National Radiological Protection Board into this and the report published in 1988 did not establish a causal link between participation and an increased incidence of cancer. A further study by the NRPB to validate the findings of the previous study has been commissioned and the report is due to be published in 1992.

     

    Elderly People

    Mr. Rooker : To ask the Prime Minister if he will convene a working group comprised of representatives of the Departments of Health, Social Security and the Environment and of the public, private and voluntary sector providers, funders and user representatives to undertake an investigation into problems and issues involved in funding care for the elderly.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 11 February 1991] : There are regular opportunities for interdepartmental consultation on the care needs of elderly people. Provider and user interests are fully reflected in this process. We believe that the creation of a formal working group of the kind suggested would add little to the existing effective collaboration machinery, and might in fact diminish its effectiveness.

     

    Toxteth Riots

    Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now place in the Library (a) the report of the Secretary of State for the Environment about the Toxteth riots, entitled “It Took a Riot”, (b) the letter of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) in response to that report and (c) the report of the former Central Policy Review Staff on problems of the inner cities ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 11 February 1991] : No.