The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 January 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the issue of the status of Kashmir and the human rights of Kashmiri people with the Indian Prime Minister during his forthcoming visit to India.

    The Prime Minister : I expect my discussions with the Indian Prime Minister to include the situation in Kashmir and our concerns about human rights.

     

    Arabic-speaking Adviser

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint an Arabic -speaking adviser as part of the staff in 10 Downing Street.

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

     

    Office Running Costs

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by him to limit or reduce the cost of running of his office.

    The Prime Minister : My office is subject to the same efficiency and value-for-money initiatives as the rest of the civil service. Between 1989-90 and 1991-92, the cost of running my office fell by just over 2 per cent. in real terms.

     

    CD-ROM

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements are in place for Government Departments to offer financial assistance for CD-ROM applications for blind and visually impaired people; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Department for Education is providing £40,000 for the development of software which will enable blind and partially-sighted people to gain full access to CD-ROM materials. This is being undertaken in collaboration with the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Open university and will be completed later this year. The software will be published by the Royal National Institute for the Blind.

  • Mr Major’s Statement at the Launch of the Rio Documents – 25 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement at the launch of the Rio Documents on 25th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When I, and 117 other Heads of Government, put our names to the Rio agreements in June 1992, we all knew it was just a beginning. The environmental challenges the world faces are immense. We all knew that signatures in Rio would mean nothing unless they resulted in action at home.

    Today we are launching four documents which take the Rio process forward.

    – our Climate change plan – to meet our commitment to return the UK’s CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000; a commitment now backed by substantive measures to change the way we use energy;

    – our biodiversity plan – to show how we propose to conserve our natural heritage for the benefit of future generations and for the rest of the world;

    – our forestry plan – setting out how we propose to manage our forests in a sustainable way.

    Over-arching all these, is the UK’s strategy for sustainable development. It is a long and complex document. I make no apology for that. It is a big and difficult subject. But it is one that is crucial to the quality of life of everyone in the country.

    Sustainable development is a jargon expression. But the problem it addresses is real. It is about meeting the global environmental challenges we face – how to tackle climate change, how to remove the threat to the ozone layer, how to preserve the variety of plant and animal life.

    They may sound remote to many people. But they’re not. And much of sustainable development is very real to people. It is about ensuring the good quality of the air we breathe in our cities, the water we drink, maintaining the countryside we all enjoy. All this does not mean calling a halt to economic growth – it means ensuring that the growth we need does not exact an unacceptable price from our environment.
    It is a huge task. A task too big for government alone. The report has been drawn up only after long consultation with business, voluntary bodies and local authorities. John Gummer will be explaining how we propose to involve them all in taking the strategy forward and how we plan to involve individual citizens.

    But government also requires advice. We are often operating in uncharted territory. We are learning as we go along. The environment requires us to think on a longer time scale than Ministers and civil servants often do. It requires us to think beyond the normal pigeon-holing of Departmental responsibility. In that task, we need frank advice of the highest quality.

    For that reason I am establishing a panel of people with long and distinguished track records in science, business and the environment to aid the Government in this task:

    – Sir Crispin Tickell – a man whose environmental credentials are known to you all as Director of the Green College Centre for Environmental Policy and Understanding, Chairman of the International Institute for Environment and Development and who has, most recently, been chairing the advisory committee on the Darwin Initiative;
    – Lord Alexander – under whose guidance NatWest Bank had become widely renowned as an environmental innovator;
    – Dr Anne MacLaren – Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society, a distinguished scientist with a European reputation;
    – Lord Selborne – Chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee who has tremendous breadth in practical nature conservation in which the UK leads the world;
    – and Sir John Houghton – Chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution – who, more than anyone, has been responsible for pushing climate change to the top of the international agenda.

    I am delighted that Sir Crispin, Lord Selborne and Sir John can be with us today.

    The task of the Panel is to give independent advice on issues of strategic importance to the Government as a whole. In particular:
    – to keep in view general sustainability issues at home and abroad
    – to identify key threats and opportunities; and
    – to monitor progress and consider priorities.

    I am grateful to them. There are few tasks more important than securing the well-being of future generations.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Director General of CBI – 25 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Director General of the CBI, Howard Davies, held in New Delhi on Monday 25th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say at the outset how delighted I am to have been invited to be India’s guest on Republic Day, I believe it is the first occasion that a British Prime Minister has been invited and honoured in this fashion and I am delighted to have had such a remarkable privilege.

    I think in one sense this does indicate with great clarity the changing and improving relationship between India and the United Kingdom. What is equally clear and has been wholly clear to me in my discussions today, is the extent to which India is changing and opening its doors a good deal more widely to the world. It is no coincidence, I believe, that shortly after I leave President Yeltsin will be arriving and Chancellor Kohl will be there very shortly after that.

    I have had the opportunity today to have discussions with the President, with the Vice-President, with the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister of Finance and the Minister for External Affairs. It is absolutely clear to me that relations between the two countries have I believe never been closer since Independence. There are nearly 1 million people of Indian origin living in Britain, they play a very prominent part in the life of the United Kingdom. We have a very large amount of foreign investment in India, our exports last year to India were very nearly 1 billion pounds and India of course remained by far our largest aid recipient.

    My reasons for coming here, apart from the invitation, were threefold; firstly political, second economic, and thirdly commercial. Politically I have been able to reaffirm our support for India’s deep-rooted democracy, I think it is extremely important and remarkable achievements have been made over the past 40 years or so. In particular I welcome the strength with which the Indian government has reaffirmed its commitment to the rule of law, to the secular constitution and to tolerance and protection for minorities.

    In our discussions today I have reaffirmed our cooperation, our joint cooperation, in the fight against terrorism and I have confirmed also that we are fully committed to using our law to this end.

    I have had the opportunity, with the Prime Minister in particular, of discussing the issue of greatest concern to them and their neighbour Pakistan – namely Kashmir. I believe that is essentially an issue for the two governments themselves to resolve, albeit with the strong encouragement of their friends. The principles which underlie our approach to this problem I think are well known, we wish to see a dialogue between India and Pakistan, a genuine political process in Kashmir and respect for human rights and an end to external support for violence in Kashmir.

    On the economic front I was very pleased to hear from the Prime Minister of India’s determination to pursue her programme of economic reform and liberalisation. That is not something we would have heard just a few years ago, today it is a very clear clarion call to the future that forms a central part of India’s policies. And one of the things that emerged from my discussions and from the separate discussions with British businessmen has been the commitment of all concerned to that reform and the belief that that reform is already bringing results. I believe that India will see the benefits of her perseverance in terms of large scale support from the IMF and more relevantly in terms of economic results here in India. We have as a country very long-standing commercial ties with India, but one change that economic reform has certainly brought about is that it is now much easier for private sector companies to do business directly with the private sector in India and they are certainly very keen to do so.

    I have brought with me to India one of the most senior groups of British businessmen ever to come to India and with them Howard Davies, the Director General of the CBI. Some very significant contracts are under discussion. I am certainly delighted to tell you that British Gas has this afternoon agreed a 100 million pound joint venture project with the gas authority of India for a natural gas distribution project in Bombay. And British Aerospace has today signed an agreement with Hindustan Aeronautics for software. A number of other contracts are being discussed and are due for agreement. We want to build on that, by we I mean the governments of India and the United Kingdom and the private sector in both countries as well. We seek to translate India’s economic reform into a revitalised commercial relationship.

    Yesterday, British businessmen met their opposite numbers in business and also met senior government officials. They have launched their initiative, they have launched a partnership initiative led not by government but by the private sector. On our side the group will help increase awareness in Britain of the opportunities to do business with India. Prime Minister Rao and I have agreed this morning to give this initiative our personal support and we have asked for a report on the progress made, and the achievements made, critically the achievements made, to be given to us at the end of this year and I have no doubt that Howard Davies will say a little more about this in a minute. But it is that partnership that will lead to more investment and to more exports. Each of the businessmen has said that he will be pursuing the contacts made during this visit and those of you who may have spoken to the businessmen will know how enthusiastic they are about the opportunities opening up.

    India already is the world’s 14th largest economy. Other countries are already moving to build on the opportunities that that represents. British investment in India will help India’s economic reform, export growth will lead our domestic recovery, there is a joint interest that both of us wish to exploit. We have as two countries an historic relationship. In this visit we have been looking to develop a modern partnership as well and I believe it has been very fruitful and we have begun to do that.

    MR DAVIES:

    For the benefit of Indian journalists here I should point out that the CBI in England is not the Central Bureau of Investigation and emphasise the Prime Minister is not under investigation, not from me.

    From the business point of view, this has been an outstandingly successful trip. The Prime Minister has announced two particular deals involving British Gas and British Aerospace, I mentioned a third yesterday involving Cadbury’s increased investment in India.

    British Gas have today reached agreement with the gas authority of India to form a joint venture company to supply natural gas to the city of Bombay. The investment by the new company will total around 100 million pounds but the significance of the agreement is broader since it puts British Gas in pole position in the development of natural gas in India which could lead to between 1.5 – 2 billion pounds worth of business in the longer term. And there will be many opportunities within those contracts for other British suppliers.

    British Aerospace signed a contract today with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited to found a joint software company, it involves a satellite link between Bangalore and Warton in Lancashire so that software engineers and designers in India may work jointly with their colleagues in Britain. Clearly that is a further strengthening of the link between the aerospace industries of India and the UK.

    Other companies on the team have been in active negotiation around the main meeting and much other progress has been made, further important contracts are expected in power generation and elsewhere.

    All these negotiations have been hugely assisted by the Prime Minister’s presence here and by the access to decision-makers that that has guaranteed for the business team. We have had a very interesting programme and we are extremely grateful to the Indian side for their hospitality and indeed for the patience with which they have answered our detailed questions.

    I mentioned yesterday our meeting with the businessmen and the Permanent Secretaries on Sunday. Today the business team met the Ministers of Commerce and Finance and then we collectively reported back on our discussion to the two Prime Ministers, a very unusual type of meeting but which was a great privilege for us. We said that we had been very impressed by the commitment to liberalisation and reform, this had been evidenced by all the Indians we had met. We did, however, press for further progress on liberalisation and indeed suggested a private sector-led initiative to raise the awareness in Britain of opportunities for trade and investment in India, matched by a similar effort over here. We believe the timing for such an initiative is exactly right since the opening of the Indian market gives a lot of encouragement to British companies who have been here already and who propose to invest.

    The British effort will be led by Robert Evans, the Chairman of British Gas, with CBI help and the Prime Minister has agreed to support, provide a secretariat and other assistance, for that initiative and that applies on both sides. We will report back to the Prime Ministers in a year on the progress made and the group of business people here are very committed to pursuing that.

    Particularly perhaps of interest to the British press, a couple of hours ago in London the CBI’s most recent quarterly industrial trend survey was issued. It showed the sharpest increase in business confidence for 5 years with strong optimism about export prospects. One-third of manufacturers were more optimistic about exports than four months ago. Prices in export markets for British manufacturers are not a problem, the main remaining restraint on exports reported by 40 percent of companies is political and economic conditions abroad. That from the business point of view is the context for this visit, the government in partnership with industry trying to create more favourable conditions for British exports and investment. We have been asking for more government support for exporters for some time and now we are getting it. The business group is very chipper as a result and for a number of them this has been a nice little earner and I cannot translate that into the Anglo-Indian idiom.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Dubai Gulf News):

    During your meeting today with the British media, you are reported to have told them by way of explaining the British Government’s position on Kashmir, that any solution to the Kashmir issue should take account among other things of the aspirations of the people – I think you used the expression “the population of Kashmir”. My question is would you please elaborate what you meant by this particular word “aspirations”, whether it is another word for “referendum” and did you discuss this with the Indian Government as apparently in your opening remarks you did not make any reference to that particular word “aspirations”?

    Secondly, by “Kashmir” do you mean all the parts in India and Pakistan?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not quite sure from where you got that quote or what detailed interview people are supposed to be referring to but it is certainly a novelty to me. Yes, I did discuss the matter with the Prime Minister this morning; I discussed it privately as an old friend of India, indeed as an old friend of Pakistan as well, we are all members of the Commonwealth.

    I don’t believe advice on how to deal with this problem best comes publicly from third party governments. Any comments in detail I may have upon it I think are best given privately to the Prime Ministers concerned and that, other than the general position I set: out in my statement, is what I will maintain.

    QUESTION (Charles Wright, Evening Standard):

    Prime Minister, can I ask you just on a domestic note since Howard Davies has mentioned it, your reaction to that rather encouraging CBI quarterly trend survey and on a less happy note here, your thoughts about the stories about various terrorist threats?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I can deal with the domestic matter first, I am clearly delighted. I have not had a chance yet to study all the details of the survey but one of the necessary ingredients for lasting recovery is confidence amongst companies at home about their prospects at home and their prospects to export. If that confidence is there, the other basic ingredients encouraging people to develop their companies and for the economy to grow are clearly in place: lower interest rates than we have had for a long time; the inflation rate well under control, far lower than we have had for a long time; and also a very competitive exchange rate so the ingredients for investment and for recovery are there. The missing ingredient for a long time has been the confidence amongst businessmen themselves that they will be able to build on the economic scene at home. So to that extent, it is very good news indeed that we have this survey showing such dramatically increased confidence; I look forward to it being translated into dramatically increased action and that of course is a matter for the private sector. I very much hope that they will be able to do that.

    On the second half of your question, I am entirely content with the security arrangements that have been made here. We had been in touch with the Indian authorities for some time about security matters during this visit and all those discussions have been entirely satisfactory.

    I think probably the threats you refer to come specifically from our commitment to the extradition treaty. I have no reservation about that treaty whatsoever. We, by which I mean the Indian Government and the British Government, are two governments amongst many that have to deal with international terrorism. Terrorism is a problem that each and every government across the world will need to combat and they will often need to coordinate their efforts so I don’t believe any threats, wherever they may come from or for whatever reason they may come, change the necessity to deal with the terrorist threat in each and every country around the world so I am perfectly content with the security arrangements that have been made.

    QUESTION (BBC):

    Prime Minister, you have made a friendly offer of help, if invited by Pakistan and India, in resolving the Kashmir dispute. If invited, how do you envisage the role of the United Kingdom, in what capacity in that unresolved problem? If not resolved during a period, what kind of pressure or what kind of persuasion do you think you can exercise?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am glad you asked that question because it enables me to clarify a misunderstanding that I have certainly seen reported in a number of newspapers.

    At no stage have we suggested or have I had it in my mind to suggest that Britain should be an intermediary between Pakistan and India. At no stage has that been our intention and at no stage has that suggestion been made.

    This difficult and intractable problem will not, I believe, be solved by an intermediary; it will be solved by the governments of India and Pakistan.

    What we have said is that as longstanding and close friends of both countries, as a senior member of the Commonwealth, we are keen to see them get together and do what they can to solve the problem and if they believe that there is any way in which we or others can assist, then we are there prepared to be asked for that assistance but it is not for us to artificially offer to broker a solution. I don’t believe that would be appropriate, we have not done it and we are not going to do it.

    QUESTION (IMPAH):

    Mr. Prime Minister, did you talk to the Government of India about Indo-British military cooperation because their latest problem is about the Air Jet trainer? Did you speak to the Prime Minister about that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We spoke about a number of matters including that one, yes.

    QUESTION (LADY ALSO FROM IMPAH):

    Prime Minister, some temples were demolished in your country recently. What action is your government contemplating on that if any at all?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Wherever people break the law, they are subjected to the rigours of the law and all such matters of that sort are investigated by the police and where appropriate, action is taken. Our law requires that and that is what happens.

    SAME LADY:

    Is your government planning any action or why hasn’t taken any action so far?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a matter for the police. Where action like that occurs, it is a matter for the police and the police will and are dealing with it.

    QUESTION (TV Asia, London):

    With more than one million Indians settled in Britain, would it not have been encouraging if you had included an Indian businessman in your delegation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It wasn’t entirely my delegation. I would have been delighted to have brought an Indian businessman with me and perhaps on a future occasion I will be able to do so.

    I am delighted that the Indians are playing a much greater role both in the business community and increasingly in politics in the United Kingdom. I think there have been very great advances on both those fronts over the last few years and I thoroughly welcome that.

    I hope on a future occasion we will have some Indian businessmen but I suppose it is possible that they may think their contacts here perhaps don’t require them to come with me!

    QUESTION (Yugoslavian News Agency TANYUK):

    Mr. Prime Minister, recently you said to the “Hindustan Times” that Great Britain is playing a leading role in resolving the Yugoslavian crisis. Tell me please, what are you going to do about this Croatian aggression in the United Nations protected areas populated by Serbs where in two or three days many Serb civilians were killed?

    Secondly, are you actually going to take steps towards lifting the unjustified sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or are you going to persuade and continue the politics of punishing Serbian people only because they did not agree to and the degradation of their country?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With respect, I am not entirely sure I agree with some of the premises upon which you base that question. I think some of them are contentious and you will be unsurprised to know that I don’t accept them.

    As for our position on the general crisis in Yugoslavia, I think there are several points that I might justifiably make about the position of the British Government.

    Firstly, the London Conference and the Vance-Owen peace proposals spring essentially from the conference I chaired during our Presidency of the European Community. The Vance-Owen team have made far more progress, I think, than many people may have imagined. There is still more to be done; there is still no agreement on the maps that they, have presented to the various parties but the progress that they have made thus far has been astonishing; few people would have expected it; I am delighted it has taken place and they must continue their work. I believe a political settlement is the only satisfactory conclusion that we will get out of the present difficulties that exist in Yugoslavia.

    The second point I would make is about the immense degree of hardship faced by many people especially – not universally but especially – in Bosnia and I believe the part that the United Kingdom has taken in the delivery of humanitarian aid both by the humanitarian agencies and provided by the United Kingdom and also provided by others – but a very large amount of the aid, the medicines and the food was provided by the United Kingdom – and also the fact that we have far more troops working to assist the delivery of humanitarian aid in Bosnia than any other country shows that in a raft of ways we have played a leading role in seeking to bring this affair to a conclusion and to minimise suffering until such time as it does end.

    On the specific point about Croatia, I think the right way to deal with the problems in Croatia and elsewhere is through the Vance-Owen dialogue and I know that is being pursued.

    QUESTION (Business Standard, Calcutta):

    I would like to know whether the recent communal disturbances in India have in any way influenced British perceptions on investment in India and also whether Britain would like to influence public opinion in the West on this issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Why ask me when you have the Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry here? I will ask Howard to reply.

    HOWARD DAVIES:

    I think that it has not. British business people have been concerned by those disturbances because of the human cost which is upsetting to business people in Britain as it is elsewhere but we do not interpret that as being about the economic reform programme and we have been assured that that programme proceeds so I think that we as business people not wishing to involve ourselves in purely political matters have set that aside and have concentrated on what we have heard from the Government about the reform programme. Nobody who was planning to come on the trip didn’t come as a result of that news so we have pressed on regardless.

    QUESTION (Economic Times):

    You mentioned a lot of interest of the business delegation and all this has come without any progress on our labour laws. Has there been some assurance from our Government regarding something done on this or are the labour laws not so important for the British businessmen?

    Secondly, Mr. Prime Minister, there were some reports saying that there was some softening or a more sympathetic stance from the British towards India’s views on the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What discussions regarding this have you had with our Prime Minister and what are your views?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Clearly, every aspect of economic relations dealing with competition in the country is of interest to us so we are very keen to see the liberalisation in all its aspects that the Indian Government are moving towards.

    I believe the extent to which they have moved in the last two years has astonished many people and delighted India’s friends and I am in no doubt after my discussions today that the Government propose to move more towards liberalisation. Clearly, they will have to take some things at a measured pace and it is not for me to predict which measures they will deal with most speedily but I think they are very conscious of the need for changes.

    On the Non-Proliferation Treaty, I think everyone around the world wishes to see the extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What I have said is that I can understand the difficulties faced by a number of countries in particular circumstances. I understand India’s position on the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I would still like India and Pakistan and other countries – the 32 who have not yet signed it – I would like to see all those countries signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The more one gets non-proliferation as a common cause, the easier it is for the two superpowers in particular but the other nuclear weapon-holders as well to begin increasingly to scale down their own nuclear capacity and believe that is something that every sane person would wish to see.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, are you aware of the sentiments of British Hindus regarding the closing of a Rama Krishna temple in London?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I have not had any discussion with them about that. I am aware of the case but I have had no discussions with them about it but very probably the Home Secretary will have done and he was here very recently; he may well have responded to questions like that.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, after talking with your Indian counterpart, I think you are satisfied with India’s new economic policy. In 1997, Hong Kong is going to China. Will you advise your Hong Kong people or Indian people that India is the right place, “You have no need to go to UK or USA for settlement, India is the right place for investment!”?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a lot of investment available in a number of countries and if I may restrict myself to India, I think there are many very good reasons for looking to the future of India with confidence and for deciding that now is a good time to invest in India but it is easy, if I may say so, for a politician to say that. More relevant is the fact that with me are a series of businessmen who are not only prepared to say that but at this moment they are prepared to commit themselves, their companies, their future and their money confident in the future of India. I believe they have made a wise judgement in doing that.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in New Delhi – 25 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in New Delhi held on Monday 25th January 1993.

    QUESTION:

    How would you describe the present relations between Britain and India?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think our present relations with India are as good as they have been at any time since independence and I say that not just for effect because I think there is a very practical reason for supposing that to be the case. The Prime Minister and I have had a number of meetings before. I am delighted to be back in order to renew our acquaintance and to talk about a whole range of matters. I think we clearly want to talk about a number of regional and diplomatic matters, we have some bilateral issues to discuss and also a number of matters related to trade and as the Prime Minister said, there are some agreements to be signed so I am delighted to be here albeit for a short visit but one I am much looking forward to.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, there was as you know something of a security alert last night, four Sikhs allegedly arrested. Are you quite happy with security?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Entirely happy.

    QUESTION:

    Are you under threat in any way?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Under no threat, entirely happy and delighted to be here.

    QUESTION:

    You don’t believe that it is linked with your visit in any way?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have no means of knowing but I am entirely content with the security.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on his Visit to India – 24 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the importance of his visit to India, made on 24th January 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked why his Indian trip was important]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have a huge trade flow with India and the capacity for increasing that is dramatic, exports abroad mean jobs at home.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on India – 24 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on India, made in Delhi on 24th January 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked whether he thought the Indo-British relationship was damaged by Britain’s new role in the European Union]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not see how they can and I certainly do not think whatever may happen within the European Community will affect them in the slightest. The relationship that exists between England, the United Kingdom and India is based on years of history, on years of common interest. They are both leading members of the Commonwealth, we have a common view on many international problems. Now I see that as a quite separate matter from our relationship with the European Community and an enduring matters. I would have suggested, and I daresay most Indian politicians would agree with me, that the present relationship between my country and India is as good today as at any time for very many years past and I see no reason why it cannot continue to stay that way.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked about the future of the Commonwealth]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Oh yes, I do not have a shred of doubt about the future of the Commonwealth. You cannot break up the sort of links that have been built up between Commonwealth countries over recent years. You cannot always point to them in tangible form in the same way that one may have a direct trading relationship with a near neighbour, but they are links of language, they are links of history, they are links of interest and they are links of common interest. So I do not have any reservations about the future of the Commonwealth, I have deliberately sought to manoeuvre Britain’s position back into the centre of the Commonwealth, I think that is where she belongs and I wish to see the Commonwealth strengthened. I very much expect in the years to come that other countries will wish to join the Commonwealth and I see no-one wishing to leave it and I think that perhaps is the clearest illustration of its continuing strength.

  • Mr Major’s Statement en Route to New Delhi – 23 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement made en route to New Delhi on Saturday 23rd January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Just a few words about why this trip and why now. Why now? I was delighted to have the invitation to be India’s guest on Republic Day, it is their greatest celebration and it is, so far as I am aware, the first time a British Prime Minister has been invited to be guest of honour. I think that is an indication of the changing and improving relationship with India over the last two or three years and I am absolutely delighted at the invitation.

    But apart from that there are some very practical matters to discuss. In terms of diplomacy and politics India is a very substantial regional power, a very important leading member of the Commonwealth and we have a large range of international and bilateral matters that are well worth discussing and I look forward to meeting the Prime Minister to run through them.

    Thirdly of course there is the question of trade and investment. India is a very large market, we have a substantial trade flow from the United Kingdom to India and from India to the United Kingdom, also a substantial investment pattern. But I think what has been achieved so far is really just the tip of the iceberg of what the prospects may be for the future and I think we need to take a much more positive approach looking abroad for export opportunities and investment opportunities. It is after all only 83 months to the millennium and we are operating in an increasingly competitive world. I think we are going to have to be increasingly competitive and increasingly forceful on behalf of the United Kingdom as well.

    Sales abroad means jobs at home and I think that is a point that the British government and British industry will need increasingly to take on board. So for that reason I have a large number of front line businessmen with me, they will all be making their own deals, I will not be fixing deals for them, but they will be arranging their own investment possibilities, their own trade prospects. Some of them will be relatively short-term discussions, others will be here looking at business prospects over a run of years in the future. It is the first time that I have taken a group of businessmen on an overseas trip, I hope it will be successful and if it is I would expect it would set a pattern for some, not all, but some trips in the future.

    So I think those are the principal reasons for the visit and I look forward to it very much.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 January 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Disabled People

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people in access to employment, training, education, leisure, transport, public buildings and shops; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : We have no plans to introduce generalised anti- discrimination legislation because we foresee problems in both approach and implementation. However, as I have made clear in the past, we are continuing to work to eliminate unjustified discrimination against people on the ground of their disability. We believe that this is best achieved by education and persuasion backed up by targeted legislation to address specific problems.

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made by Departments in implementing the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; what plans he has to implement the outstanding sections; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Most of the major provisions of the Act have now been implemented, bringing substantial benefits to disabled people and their carers. The requirements of the non-implemented sections of the Act are now, to a very large extent, reflected in the Department of Health’s new and wide-ranging reforms of community care, which demonstrate our commitment to high quality care responsive to the needs and wishes of service users and carers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will review the need to implement these sections in the light of several years’ experience of the community care arrangements.

     

    Scottish Constitution

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 January, Official Report, column 790, if he will list those individuals and organisations that he has consulted when taking stock of the governance of Scotland since April 1992.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 11 January 1993 at column 552.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions Her Majesty’s Government held with the Governments of (a) Egypt and (b) Syria on the efficacy of military intervention in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Since the invasion of Kuwait we have had frequent discussions with the Egyptians and Syrians on the situation in Iraq. We have discussed the allies’ latest military action in Iraq with Egyptian and Syrian officials.

     

    Ministerial Residences

    Mr. Blunkett : To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost in 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 of each of the official country residences owned by the Government broken down into (a) housekeeping, (b) catering/hospitality, (c) maintenance and (d) other costs; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 20 January 1993] : Chequers, Dorneywood and Chevening are not owned by the Government. Chequers is administered as an independent trust, which receives an annual grant from public funds towards the maintenance of Chequers. In the three years concerned the grant has been :

    |£

    ————————

    1990-91 |238,000

    1991-92 |244,000

    1992-93 |260,000

    The Government also contribute to the costs of household staff at Chequers, but this information is not separately identifiable. The maintenance and staff expenses of Chevening house are met by the Chevening trust. The total cost to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for housekeeping, catering/hospitality and other costs in the three years concerned has been :

    |£

    ——————–

    1990-91 |4,374

    1991-92 |7,984

    1992-93 |9,451

    In addition, other Government Departments use Chevening from time to time for meetings or seminars, for which they pay separately. Dorneywood is administered by a trust fund. Its upkeep does not involve any cost to the Treasury.

  • PMQT – 21 January 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McAllion : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. McAllion : Is the Prime Minister aware that the murderous attacks on Iraq, which he supported, have killed at least 45 Iraqis–who were themselves innocent of any violation of international law–have made international lepers of Britain and the United States and have, in the eyes of the democratic opposition in Iraq, served only to strengthen the position of the tyrant Saddam? Does he understand that the crimes that he has committed against innocent Iraqi people may have been undertaken in his name, but were not in my name or in the name, I believe, of the vast majority of the British people?

    The Prime Minister : I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. From the expressions on the faces of most of his right hon. and hon. Friends, neither do they.

    Mr. Faber : Given that yesterday was the inauguration of President Clinton, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United States remain our strongest ally, as indeed we do theirs? Will he take this opportunity to reaffirm that the special relationship is greatly valued by Britain, as President Clinton has already done?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, I can certainly confirm that to my hon. Friend. There has been a very close relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States for many years. It is a practical relationship, quite apart from the political and military relationship. For example, the United Kingdom is the world’s largest overseas investor in the United States and our exports to the United States last year were some £12 billion. I know that President Clinton will have the good wishes of the entire House and I know that he knows that he can look to this country and this Government as firm friends of the United States.

    Mr. John Smith : In view of the horrendous rise in unemployment announced today–almost 61,000 in one month–when will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his economic policies have failed the nation and are now blighting the lives of millions of British families?

    The Prime Minister : Today’s figures on unemployment are clearly deeply disappointing. They reflect the job losses in the pipeline that were announced last autumn and have now come through. I do not doubt the concern about unemployment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman voices, for I share that concern ; so does everyone on this side of the House. We wish to see unemployment falling and people getting back into secure and lasting jobs. That is my objective, just as much as it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s. But there must be a dual strategy for long-lasting solutions to unemployment. First, there must be solid foundations for economic recovery–low inflation predominantly among them–and secondly, wide-ranging help for the unemployed. That is in place.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister expresses concern for the unemployed, but is he not the same right hon. Gentleman who told us that if it is not hurting it is not working? Is he not the Prime Minister whose first reaction to the announcement of the pit closures was that they had to be closed “cleanly and quickly”, and whose Chancellor believes that unemployment is a “price well worth paying”? How can we believe that his expressions of concern are genuine when we take all those factors into account?

    The Prime Minister : One of the principal causes of unemployment in countries around the world as well as here is the difficulty faced with inflation. It is this Government who have had the courage to stick with policies to get inflation down, and the reality is, despite all his rhetoric neither the right hon. and learned Gentleman nor his hon. Friends have set out a coherent policy for dealing with unemployment. When they produced their phoney budget, they knew that it was a budget that would increase taxes and put up jobs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman still has not responded to the question that he could not answer on Tuesday. How much money would his new tax on windfall profits raise? If he cannot tell us, how can he make the claims for it that he does? Can he guarantee that it will last only a year? No, he cannot. The fact of the matter is that he has no policies other than to complain about the Government, and no idea how to deal with the economy or unemployment.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the nation is tired of feeble and lame excuses? It is also tired of the right hon. Gentleman blaming everyone in the world but himself. When, at long last, will he give the attack on unemployment the priority that the nation demands?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman has to accept economic reality. He should recognise that economic reality requires that you get inflation down and competitiveness up and those are the policies that we are pursuing. He should recognise also the effect of his policies : crushing profits does not create jobs ; tax structures that drive away inward investment do not create jobs ; piling burdens on business does not create jobs ; the social chapter will not create jobs. Those are the policies of the Labour party ; they are policies which would deliberately drive up unemployment and not create the conditions for lasting employment.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth : Further to what my right hon. Friend said, does he agree that one of the best ways of helping British industry would be to cut the red tape bureaucracy and regulation with which it has been overburdened for far too long? Does he agree that a new deregulation drive would help industry to create new jobs?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about the consistent need persistently to bring down the level of regulation and red tape. The more we can rid business of red tape and regulation, the more British business can get on with creating wealth and generating new jobs. As my hon. Friend will have heard last week in the House, I propose to hold a seminar at the beginning of February– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. The Prime Minister must be heard. We cannot– [Interruption.] We cannot make progress– [Interruption.] I like good humour, but there are times when we have to keep quiet and listen. The Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : –at which every Department in Whitehall would come along with regulations that Opposition Members would support and which we propose to remove from business to increase competitiveness.

     

    Q2. Mr. Gapes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Gapes : In the light of today’s report by the Employment Select Committee, will the Prime Minister apologise to the House, to the British people and to the miners for saying on 16 October that it was better to sack 30,000 mine workers “quickly and cleanly” than to institute a full review of the pit closure programme?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the way in which the hon. Gentleman phrases his question tells us a great deal about him. What we are seeking to do is to create a viable coal industry with a fitter future. The hon. Gentleman might recall how many mining jobs were lost under Labour Governments, for there were more lost than there ever have been under Conservative Governments– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Having asked his question, the hon. Gentleman should not bawl and shout from a sedentary position.

     

    Q3. Mr. Pawsey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Pawsey : Is my right hon. Friend aware that 642 schools have already applied and balloted for grant-maintained status? Does he agree that that is a formidable expression of public and parental opinion? What advice does he give to Opposition Members who persist in their ill- conceived hostility to grant-maintained schools?

    The Prime Minister : In fact, as at the end of last afternoon there were 648–another six have decided to become grant maintained. That is because parents are increasingly seeing the benefit of independence from local authority control. They are voting for grant-maintained schools in increasing numbers and the reason for that is entirely clear. Since opting out they have discovered that they can employ more staff, take on more pupils, enhance special needs provision and provide more books, because they have the freedom to put the money in the classroom where it belongs, and are not subjected to unnecessary control from county hall.

     

    Q4. Mr. David Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Marshall : Does not the Prime Minister realise the catastrophic consequences for unemployment if either Devonport or Rosyth dockyards closes? As well as the folly to the nation of concentrating defence work on one site, does he accept that 18,000 jobs are at risk in Rosyth, and that there is a solution that will keep both dockyards open? Does he agree that that solution is to give Devonport the surface ship work that it does best and to give Rosyth the submarine work that it does best? Will he support that solution? If not, why not?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party, many of whom would abolish nuclear weapons, and nearly all of whom would dramatically reduce defence expenditure. I think that the hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind before he criticises this Government for their defence policies.

     

    Q5. Mr. Mans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. Mans : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his Chancellor of the Exchequer has no intention in his Budget of introducing a windfall tax on the privatised utilities, as that would deal a body blow to the 10 million people in this country who have invested in those utilities and would discourage the wider share ownership that we all want in the future ?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly offer that assurance to my hon. Friend. As he rightly says, there are 10 million shareholders, many with very limited shareholdings, with a stake in the utility industries in this country. We understand that it is investment which ultimately creates jobs and that taxation on investment destroys jobs.

     

    Q7. Dr. Berry : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Dr. Berry : May I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to early-day motion 330, which calls for the early introduction of a Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Is the Prime Minister aware that this early-day motion has substantial cross-party support–in fact, the greatest volume of support of any early-day motion submitted this Session? Does he accept that disabled people want action–very speedy action–and can he confirm that he will respond positively to the early-day motion?

    The Prime Minister : For a year I was, of course, the Minister of State responsible for disability, and I am well aware of the Government’s excellent record in increasing the benefits for disabled people and providing a much wider range of facilities for them. That is a record unmatched by any other party in the House.

     

    Q8. Mr. French : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 January.

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

    Mr. French : Is my right hon. Friend aware that this country’s privatisation programme has been widely applauded and copied in many parts of the world? Can he confirm that, notwithstanding the current criticisms of the British Rail proposals, he will forge ahead with the privatisation programme and will bring forward other candidates, including the Post Office, at an early date?

    The Prime Minister : We propose to proceed not only with the programme of privatisation but with programmes of more contracting out and more market testing. In the current year Government work worth about £1.5 billion will be market tested and, where appropriate, put out to the private sector if that sector can deal with it more efficiently.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 January 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Security Service

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the oral answer of 14 January by the Secretary of State for National Heritage to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Official Report, columns 1075-76, to what categories of questions regarding the security service Ministers are now willing to provide substantive replies.

    The Prime Minister : As I said in my statement to the House on 6 May last year, at column 65, successive Governments have not commented on matters relating to security and intelligence. The reason for that is clear : it is difficult to comment without revealing, by what is said or not said, information that can have a bearing on the effectiveness of these services and the safety of their staff.

    Nevertheless, from time to time there will be matters of public concern on which it is desirable and possible to make a considered statement. There are precedents under successive Administrations when such statements have been made without prejudice to the general convention. An example is the assurance which I gave hon. Members on 29 June 1992, Official Report, column 37, about postal and telephone interception.

     

    UN Aims Register

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with setting up a United Nations arms register.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 January 1993] : The register was established by a UN general assembly resolution in December 1991. In December 1992 the general assembly approved by consensus a report by technical experts on the register’s implementation. Participating countries are required to provide their first returns of information by 30 April 1993 covering arms imports and exports in the calendar year 1992. The Secretary-General will produce an annual report containing the information registered which will be available for consultation by member states.

     

    Royal Family (Telephone Tapping)

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement concerning Her Majesty’s Government’s policy regarding the tapping of telephones of members of the royal family or their personal friends.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 January 1993] : The interception of communications during their transmission by means of a public telephone system is subject to the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The Government have accepted Sir David Calcutt’s recommendation to consider whether the legislation adequately protects private telephone calls. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage assured the House in his statement on 14 January, there is no substance to rumours about the involvement of the security and intelligence agencies in interception of the communications of the royal family.

     

    Intergovernmental Binding Decisions

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 14 December 1992, Official Report, column 37, what are the criteria distinguishing an intergovernmental binding decision and treaty if both are justiciable in the International Court of Justice.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 January 1993] : I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 15 January, at column 822.