The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Young Engineers Competition – 11 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Young Engineers for Britain Competition, organised by the Engineering Council. The speech was given on 11th September 1991 at the National Westminster Hall in London.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the reasons I am delighted to be here is because of what it actually signifies about the way in which prospects for the future are changing, the opportunities for young people in the future are changing, and the things that we need to do to secure our own prosperity in the future are changing as well.

    The days when young people learned a profession and then stayed in that profession from the time they left school to the time they retired without any fresh learning, fresh innovation or changes have long since gone. That may have been the way of life for generations in the past, but it certainly isn’t for generations today and it is going to be less so for generations in the future.

    The pace of innovation, of technology, the engineering changes that are being brought about are meaning that we are living in a world that is moving more rapidly than anything we have ever known before. And that places a special premium on the skills of those who can make things happen, those who can apply scientific knowledge, those who can make sure that scientific knowledge uses nature’s resources to benefit mankind. And that in the wider application is what engineering is about and it is because of what engineers have done and the fruits of their work that these days we live healthier lives, longer lives, in many ways more comfortable lives than previous generations.

    Maybe politicians occasionally take the credit for it but the reality is that it is the innovation and brilliance of men and women who have been engineers who’ve actually brought about so many of those changes.

    We live also in a time when television and radio have widened our knowledge and horizons. When labour saving devices have freed us, especially women, from the previous generations who faced the endless drudge of household chores. That is rapidly changing, opening the way thank goodness to independent careers for far more people today and tomorrow than has ever been the case in the past.

    And then of course there is the health-care technology aspects of engineering. The technology that has saved countless lives in this country and throughout the world and gives disabled people a great deal more personal freedom than otherwise they would have. Those are two of the fruits of the activities of the best of our engineers. We live in a time when cars and trains and planes give us mobility undreamed of by our ancestors. All those are products, too, of the skills, the resources, mental resources, of our engineers.

    And I believe that there cannot be a shred of doubt that good quality engineers are vital not only to our personal living standards but to our national prosperity. Nearly one tenth of our nation’s wealth is created by engineers.

    Perhaps one clear illustration of the extent to which the financial sector in particular recognises this is the direct link between engineers and prosperity illustrated by putting Faraday and Stephenson on modern bank notes. It’s quite right that they should be there; they have played a significant role in creating that modern prosperity.

    So we live in a changing world and we change with it or we fall behind other people. There can be no doubt I think in our minds, anybody in this country, what we need to do. We need to stay at the leading end of innovation and technology if we are to achieve for this country what it expects of itself and what we wish to see achieved.

    In years gone past, over generations, I feel we have been less good than some of our main competitors at getting enough of the best young people into engineering. And the reason for that is one I feel deeply about myself and have touched upon on many occasions. It is that instinct embedded deep in our culture that previously tended to disdain industry and give more kudos to classical education than to technological education.

    Our aim very clearly my intention, is to change that culture. So that the British engineer enjoys the same status as the German engineer. That is what we need to move towards, both for social reasons and, I think, for economic reasons as well if we are to maximise the opportunities for our country in the future. It will take time. It is a cultural change. It can’t just happen because we pass an Act in Parliament, or because we make a speech or two.

    It will grow, but I believe it is becoming ever-more embedded in the national instinct that people who have the particular skills of technology and engineering are people who are of critical importance to all our futures. And I hope they will not only enjoy the business, but the social status that necessarily should go with that.

    Clearly a part of that is to do with Government and is to do with education. It is for those reasons that we have made many of the changes that one has seen in recent years in the national curriculum. The change that means that every pupil studies maths and science up to the age of 16 to the required level of attainment. And these days far more people are applying to become science and maths teachers and there is no doubt at all in recent years how much we have needed to produce them.

    So we are seeking and finding new ways of meeting the demand for technical education. City technology colleges are proving their popularity, at least three applications for every single place that becomes available. And there could I think be no clearer illustration of two things. First the vast reservoir of people who understand the importance of technology education. And secondly the vast number of our young people who have an aptitude and an interest in that form of education and who wish to pursue it. Their judgement is right, it is going to be critical to our future and their success in that will secure their individual futures as well.

    And so we sought to meet much of those aspirations by increasing the number of engineering places in higher education. By setting in place for the first time a coherent structure of high level vocational qualifications which will raise their status. That is I think frightfully important. It must be understood by employers and others that vocational qualifications are important and that they should enjoy the same status as academic qualifications in the future and we are determined that they will.

    Now the Government of course finds itself in a position where it can do a great deal. But it cannot do it all. We can provide the foundation in Government, but thereafter it is for employers to market engineering. To show the attractions and opportunities of engineering, so young people have a clearer understanding of what engineers do and what a remarkably attractive career it can be for them.

    I know from what I have read about this competition and what I hope to see at the end of this brief ceremony is that the young people in this hall have I illustrated there is no shortage of talent in the engineering sector.

    What we must now do is maximise that talent, utilise it, for them, for us and for the wider country as well. And it is up to employers to demonstrate that engineering can offer satisfying and rewarding careers. The sponsors of today’s competition have recognised that and they have done something practical about it. And John Fairclough, (Chairman of The Engineering Council), who used to be my Scientific Adviser, and never hesitated to speak his mind on these occasions has frequently reminded me of the importance of all that. So let me say to the sponsors how much I appreciate what they have done in the past, are doing, and will I trust do in the future to continue to sponsor engineering. Their help is very much appreciated and we desperately need it.

    Let me also applaud those employers who work with The Engineering Council on the Neighbourhood Engineers scheme, another important scheme that’s doing extremely well. And having engineers working alongside teachers in secondary schools is bound to raise the awareness in those schools of what engineers can offer young pupils, parents and teachers.

    Increasingly technology itself is becoming a subject that young people actually study at school and carry forward. And that is another illustration of the changes that we are seeing in our education system. I mentioned a few moments ago that Carol (Carol Vorderman, the TV and radio presenter on maths and science programmes, who announced the Awards), was an engineer and in that she is amongst a minority and particularly a minority of women. But it is increasingly important to get more women to pursue engineering as a career.

    And I hope that career advisers in schools will throw away these old handbooks of stereotypes of what boys like to do and what girls like to do. Let them actually lift their eyes a bit more. Look at the opportunities that actually exist and encourage people to develop where their natural talents lie irrespective of whether they happen to be a boy or happen to be a girl. There is a fine career in engineering for girls as well as boys.

    And I saw recently a quote from one very high-flying woman engineer. And I think it’s just worth passing it on to you. What she said was this: “The competent woman engineer will have every opportunity to rise in the profession to positions of real responsibility”.
    And what she went on to say was equally important, “Engineering now has as much to do with replacement of hip joints, baby life support systems, and pollution control systems, as it has to do with nuclear power and anti-ballistic missiles. There is room for the woman engineer in all those fields”. And I very strongly agree with that sentiment.

    Not only do I agree with it, I believe that the WISE scheme (the Women into Science and Engineering scheme), that initiative is beginning to change attitudes for the better. The proportion of women engineering students has nearly doubled since WISE started in 1984. And eight, eight of the regional finalists in today’s competition are young women. What we wish to see in the future is to see that rise and very substantially, and I have no doubt that it will.

    So today is an important occasion not just for the innovators who are here amongst whom the prizewinners will be announced very shortly and I have been threatened with the direst results if I leak the results even moments in advance of them being announced. But they are illustrating the changing positions we have in this country.

    There can in a competition like this only be one winner at the end of examining all the entries. But what I have read already of what the entries are, illustrates very clearly to me that there is a dazzling array of skill and talent that the young people have brought here today to this particular competition and I offer them the warmest congratulations for everything they have achieved in getting here today.

    The word “engineering” comes from the same word meaning “ingenious” or “creative”. That applies to everyone who is here in this final. That ingenuity, that creativeness is what we will build on in the years to come if we are to deliver and build the prosperity that I would like to see us achieve in this country. That is why I am pleased to be here, that is why I am pleased you are here, that is why most of all I am pleased these young people are here for without them it would be a fruitless operation and it is my pleasure now simply to ask Carol to announce the names of the award winners.

  • Mr Major’s Comments after Meeting with President Mitterrand – 11 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments after the meeting with President Mitterrand, made in an interview in Paris on Wednesday 11th September 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how the talks had progressed].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With President Mitterrand, as ever very friendly, very constructive and very worthwhile. We covered a wide range of subjects. As we meet and speak so frequently, much of the background can be pushed aside and we can deal with the matters of immediate important so we dealt at some length with the present circumstances in the Soviet Union, what is happening and we believe will happen. We have a very similar view on the present problems in Yugoslavia and the importance of the peace conference and the arbitration process; we spent a good deal of time on that. We discussed also the Intergovernmental Conference and the need to move forward and try and reach an agreement in Maastricht later on this year. We discussed the Association Agreements with the Eastern European nations and we both believe that a solution to the present difficulties will be found for that within this month, so it was very useful and very constructive and we were able to touch on a number of other matters as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was still division between France wanting to deepen the European Community and him wanting to widen it].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a whole series of matters to be considered about both deepening and widening the Community. We are considering deepening in the two Intergovernmental Conferences and I think we will reach satisfactory conclusions on that at Maastricht though precisely what they will be at the moment is unclear. There is a great deal of discussion, a great deal of hard talking, a great deal of negotiation before that occurs but my position for a long time has been that I don’t want a girdle thrown around the Community. Nobody in the Community wants to say: “Here we are, nobody will join us in future!”. That isn’t what the construction of the Community is about; we want to see it widen as well. Half of Europe after the War turned out to be free and that became part of NATO by and large and it became part of the Community; the other half is increasingly free; I think they will want to play an increasing role in the economic process in the West. Over time, I think we would wish to see that.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Grampian – 10 September 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Grampian on Tuesday 10th September 1991. The opening question was not recorded.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t comment in any detail about them, no. I have had a very general briefing about them. I have asked the Home Secretary for a detailed briefing about them. I understand they arose from an incident that occurred the night before; that seems to be the original impression that has been gained. I have asked for a full report but I don’t yet have it, I’m afraid.

    QUESTION:

    Is it a concern that there seems to be a succession of a series of these incidents?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There has been a small run of these incidents; that does occasionally happen and they all seem to have a different genesis and whatever the genesis may be, they are not acceptable. They are not the way for people to behave and there is no need for them, but I think I had better have further facts about them before I comment further. One often gets this copycat effect; it happens in one area and then you get this mini-riot and people feel it is acceptable to behave in that way elsewhere. It isn’t acceptable to behave in that way and they must recognise it; the public don’t want it; the police don’t want it; and it is just not an acceptable way for people to behave. If they have problems and they have concerns, there are other ways of doing it and not the way we have seen once or twice recently, but they do seem to have a separate cause in each incident.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Aberdeen – 9 September 1991

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s speech in Aberdeen, given on 9th September 1991. [Parts of the transcript were unclear, and are marked with ….]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say thank you for the opportunity of meeting you all here this evening. I have spent the day in Aberdeen and the area and it has been a very worthwhile day. One of the pleasures of being Prime Minister is that you are able to escape from London and I do belong to those species of politicians who do not believe that the world begins and ends in the Greater London area.

    So it has been an intriguing day from the Cardon [phon] distillery, to schools, the Chamber of Commerce, the lunchtime speech to the Aberdeen Press and Journal and also to open Grampian Enterprise’s new building where they are going to produce all these splendid … and other ideas of Scottish enterprise that are going to provide so much training for us in the future.

    So I have had the opportunity of getting a very clear bird’s eye view of much of what is happening up here and from my point of view it has been an immensely worthwhile occasion.

    Let me just say a brief word or two about one or two of the matters that are still to come in the months … the rest of this year. And no I am not going to talk about the general election.

    Let me say a word about the progress of the economy as where I think we now are. Across the United Kingdom as a whole the recession has been quite deep, it has been deeper I think it is fair to say than we anticipated at the start or indeed had anyone anticipated, it has been uneven. Contrary to the pattern in recessions that we have seen almost as far back as you can go, the deepest part of it has been in the south and the east because predominantly that was where the largest borrowing was and that therefore was where the largest impact was with the monetary policy as we sought to end it.

    The way it now happens I think is for a sufficiency of months to be absolutely certain … but I think it has been happening for a sufficient number of months to be absolutely certain about it … is that we are I believe increasingly clear that we are through the worst of the recession and that we can now look forward to the regeneration of confidence in the months ahead.

    There are several things I believe that makes that perfectly clear and the first of those is the direction of inflation and by inflation I do not just mean the Retail Price Index, important though that undoubtedly is, I mean the trend of underlying inflation as well. That has been dropping now for some months and it is clear we have it by the scruff of the neck and it will go on dropping in the months ahead. It is very likely that we will have a lower inflation rate than Germany at some stage between now and the end of the year and we have not had that for very many years indeed.

    The second matter which I think is increasingly impacted upon the business mind if not the public mind is the effect of having joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism. In the last year, since we joined it when I was Chancellor last October – and I am bound to say it seems longer, I cannot think why – but in the year since we joined it last October we have seen interest rates in the United Kingdom come down by 4.5 percent, we have seen them rise in Germany and many other parts of Europe, and yet sterling, despite this dramatic narrowing of interest rate differentials has stayed absolutely stable around its central point of 2.95 deutschmarks.

    Not many people expected that to happen but I believed that it would and thus far at least events have shown that that was the right judgment.

    So we are increasingly getting to the position where we have a stable exchange rate, which is one of the key ingredients that the business sector repeatedly have said to governments that they need, they need to be clear where they are on the exchange markets, increasingly that is the case. We now have inflation coming down as well so we have two key ingredients that are critical to business confidence.

    The third one is where we have had so much problem in the months that have immediately gone past, there has been a decline in consumer confidence and consequently in spending and consequently in the market for your products whether in the retail sector or in many parts of the country though that is so I know in Aberdeen for other reasons in the construction industry.

    But there are signs now that consumer confidence is reviving, this morning’s figures I think tend to indicate that, but there have been other leading indicators as well. And if that is correct, and I think the balance of probability is that it is correct, we will be having another of the ingredients in place that we need to return to sustainable growth and that is the return of consumer and investor confidence.

    Now if those three factors are in place – the stable exchange rate, the falling and thereafter low inflation rate and the return of consumer confidence – we are going to find ourselves very well placed indeed for an upturn in the economy in the year ahead.

    Some people say will it be speedy? Well I would say to you, though it will seem to you I daresay a curious thing for me to say, I hope not too soon because what I do not want to see is the economy coming so speedily out of the recession that we have had that we create that hump and collapse that we have seen so frequently in the past, that boom and stop scenario. I do not want that, I want a gentle and sustainable, sustainable, growth out of recession in the months and the years ahead and that is what we are gearing policy to achieve.

    But apart from the fact that I think that is the most stable way to move the economy out of recession, it is also the most sensible way if we look at what we actually need to achieve in the 1990s. Out there is a more competitive world day by day than we have ever known before in our history as a great trading nation. All over the world people who were tame and happy recipients of our products and expertise years ago are now our principal competitors, all the way across south-east Asia you see the most immense changes in attitude, in producing techniques, in management skills, areas where we had huge markets and now we must fight not only for those markets but against those people for other markets.

    And then you see the changes there have been in Latin America and elsewhere. We are in a world where the most competitive and the most efficient have tremendous horizons and where the uncompetitive and the inefficient have no horizons whatsoever because these days if you are not efficient and you are not competitive and you do not provide what people want then you will not survive let alone thrive in the 1990s. In Europe there is a special point to be made and that is the fact that we will soon have the Single Market completely in operation, we will have an open more liberal market across Europe than we have ever seen before, it will not be perfect but it will be a good deal better than anything that has been in place. And the countries and the businesses that will scoop the pool in that huge and rich market are the efficient ones that a stable economy, sustainable investment, sustainable growth, low inflation and the right business climate in order to have the confidence to go out and seek and win those markets.

    That I believe is a huge prize, it is a prize that I am not prepared to take any risks with and that is the essential reason that I say we must come out of this bitter and nasty recession at a sustainable pace to give industry and commerce the right climate to capitalise on those opportunities in the 1990s.

    It is interesting, is it not, … I gave you some illustrations a moment ago in terms of what is happening in other parts of the world but we have seen politically as well the huge changes that are taking place in Eastern Europe and the great changes in terms of technology, many of the things that people will buy as their everyday consumer durables by the turn of the century, probably the majority of those things that they will buy have not yet been invented in the early 1990s. That is the pace of change and particularly technological and innovative change that we are actually seeking to live with at the moment and the environment in which we have to ….

    So it is an exciting time, it is a time when the opportunities are different and a time when if we get the economic management wrong you will not be able to take advantage of those opportunities, that is why I will be cautious in bringing us, with Norman Lamont, out of the recession. But I do believe we are coming out of it in the right way and I think because of the survey released this morning, added to the earlier evidence we have seen, are the clearest opportunity that that is actually what is happening.

    So 4 percent inflation by the end of the year is a target, a target that now I am confident we will meet and perhaps beat .. and that is I think a very happy and worthwhile development.

    So let me just say in conclusion how pleased I have been to have the opportunity of speaking to some of you and soon to have the opportunity of meeting more of you. I am aware of the work of the Chamber of Commerce out in the area, I know how many companies are members, I know the opportunities that you will have to work with the Chamber of Commerce to exploit the export markets that I have mentioned.

    I would just say to you opportunities are there if we have … and the skill and the enterprise and the courage then we must take those opportunities and build for ourselves in the 1990s a business structure and a prosperity structure for this and the next generation on a scale we previously had not imagined and had not seen. I wish you well.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce – 9 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce Dinner on Monday 9th September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introductory remarks.

    It is a great pleasure to be with you this evening. I very much welcome this opportunity to meet representatives of the business community here in North East Scotland.

    This Chamber is well-known as a sturdy champion of local business in Aberdeen and Grampian. Firms in this area benefit substantially from the high standard of service which the Chamber provides for its members. I am particularly impressed by the way that the Chamber has capitalised on the economic opportunities which have come to Grampian in recent years.

    A Chamber of Commerce that makes the most of these opportunities is truly serving the interests of its members and the wider local community.

    But industry in Grampian – even the international oil and gas industries – can only flourish in a strong domestic economy. And a strong domestic economy requires the defeat of inflation. Control of inflation has been and remains the Government’s main economic objective. We promised we would beat inflation. It is a battle we are winning and will go on winning.

    Headline inflation has been virtually halved since last October. It is now down to 5.5 per cent, the lowest figure for 3 years. Moreover, the underlying rate of inflation has also fallen dramatically – down by 2 3/4 percentage points since last autumn. Make no mistake: inflation will continue to fall in the months ahead. We are now firmly on course for inflation of 4 per cent by the end of this year.

    Over the last year, inflation has risen in most other EC countries. In the UK it has fallen significantly. And by the end of this year I expect our inflation rate to be below the EC average. Indeed, our inflation rate may well be lower than that of Germany.

    As inflationary pressures have eased, so interest rates have come down. Not just once or twice. But 8 times since last October. Only last week, the conditions were right for a further 1/2 per cent cut. That took our base rates to 10 1/2 per cent – the lowest level for over 3 years. Even before the latest reduction is passed on these cuts will have been saving business £5 billion a year. And the typical £30,000 mortgage payer is £65 a month better off than last year.

    If the Government had predicted last autumn that inflation would be halved; that sterling would remain strong against the deutschmark; and that domestic interest rates would fall from 15 per cent to 10 1/2 per cent, we might have been accused of excessive optimism. Indeed, our opponents might well have put their scepticism in stronger language. For that remarkable combination of a steady exchange rate, falling interest rates and falling inflation is just what we have achieved.

    Yet the battle against inflation is being won at a time of great economic difficulty for many. The United Kingdom economy has been passing through recession. It has been painful for many individuals and many businesses. That recession is of course by no means confined to the UK – North America, France, Italy, Australia have also seen falling output. Yet, however international its coverage, that is no consolation for all those who have been hit hard here at home.

    We cannot be absolutely sure whether the recovery has started because we only get the figures some time after the event. However, there are some encouraging, if still highly provisional indications, that recovery is now underway. A number of recent press articles have drawn attention to the pick-up in retail sales, the excellent recent growth in exports and to higher than expected sales of cars. And even before the latest reduction in interest rates business and consumer confidence has been steadily improving. I remain confident that we will see a recovery in the second half of this year.

    The Scottish economy is of course closely integrated with that of the United Kingdom as a whole. And it would be surprising if wider trends at United Kingdom level were not observed here in Scotland. Yet the pattern is by no means the same. All the evidence suggests that the current economic downturn will be shorter and shallower in Scotland than in the United Kingdom as a whole.

    Over recent years, the Scottish economy has achieved remarkable success. Between 1986 and 1989, Scotland had a faster rate of economic growth than Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Denmark. Final figures for 1990 are not yet available. But independent forecasters take the view that Scotland out-performed the United Kingdom economy in that year. It is likely to do so again in 1991 – convincing evidence of the strength of the Scottish economy and its resilience in times of difficulty.

    There are many reasons underlying Scotland’s economic success. The calibre of its people. A unique highly-respected education system. Its independent financial sector. A long tradition of skill, innovation and enterprise. But let me focus on just two striking features of recent performance.

    First, inward investment. Two years ago, the value of new projects attracted to Scotland reached an all-time high. Over the last year, Scotland has secured inward investment decisions worth some £400 million and 10,000 jobs. In a year when we were hit by the Gulf War and the slowdown in the world economy that surely speaks volumes about the attractions of Scotland to international mobile industry. I am confident that that proud record will continue in the years ahead.

    Second, the resurgence of offshore oil and gas activity, centred here in the North East.

    The rapid growth in North Sea activity last year set new records. Exploration and appraisal activity on the UK Continental Shelf reached its highest ever level. Spending committed to new projects was also at a new record. And so was the value of new orders placed for goods and services. Despite increasingly intense competition – particularly from Europe – UK companies’ share of that total was also a record. It rose by 50 per cent in a year to £4.78 billion.

    The pace of recent developments and the continued high discovery rate means that a new peak in combined oil and gas output is now expected by the middle of this decade, with welcome implications for Grampian, Scotland, and the wider UK economy.

    Last year, gas production hit a new record [of some 50 billion cubic metres]. Output is now expected to continue to grow strongly for the rest of the decade. With completion of the new gas pipeline tying the Beryl and Brae fields to St. Fergus, and the development of the large gas condensate Bruce field, gas supplies landed through St. Fergus will increase substantially within the next couple of years. The development of central and northern North Sea gas condensate fields like Bruce and East Brae signals a wholly new phase in the development of the UK’s gas resources.

    Oil exploration so far this year remains at very high levels: I am told that the North Sea has now overtaken even the Gulf of Mexico as the highest area of offshore drilling activity anywhere in the world.

    And oil production is expected to pick up again following completion of the outstanding safety work associated with the Cullen Report. The Piper field itself is now expected to be back on stream ahead of schedule by early next summer, with a new platform incorporating all the safety and engineering lessons learned from the Piper Alpha disaster. As other significant new oilfields like Saltire and Scott come on stream, total oil production should climb steadily over the next three to four years towards a second peak very close to the previous record set in the mid-1980s.

    Until comparatively recently it was still widely assumed that Britain’s self-sufficiency from oil production in the North Sea would be lost by the early 1990s, and that production would fall away steadily thereafter.

    These developments provide a clear vindication for our approach to the oil and gas industries. A flexible and attractive tax regime. Non-intervention – leaving the market to make the necessary adjustments to oil price changes. By our approach I believe we have helped ensure that the UK will remain a major oil and gas producer until well into the next century. We helped to create the conditions which have enabled Scotland’s offshore supplies industry to write one of the most remarkable technological success stories in the history of this century.

    But there is of course more to Grampian than oil and gas. Long before oil was discovered in the North Sea, Grampian was justifiably noted for the quality and natural produce from its countryside. The Aberdeen Angus, the golden Glenlivet malts, the fish harvested from the dangerous waters of the North Sea. I have seen some of these products already today when I paid a most useful and enjoyable visit to the Knockando Distillery on Speyside. So interesting was it that my staff are encouraging me to sample (and I choose my words carefully) the distillery again – and again – and again.

    Industries such as these provide crucial employment in rural parts of Grampian and elsewhere in the North of Scotland. We in Government recognise the importance to those areas of the continued success and prosperity of a range of industry.

    Earlier today, I launched formally Grampian Enterprise Limited, the local enterprise company for the North East. I was struck by the feeling of purpose and commitment which I sensed. The calibre and enthusiasm of Ian Wood and his colleagues are impressive. The staff are clearly committed to Grampian too. I am delighted that through the Scottish Enterprise initiative, the Government have provided the opportunity – and the resources – to enable business people to give a grass-roots lead to training and economic development in Scotland in this way.

    The opportunity is indeed immense. It gives business people the chance to shape the provision of economic development and training programmes to suit local needs. But it is potentially much more significant. The initiative puts business in the key position to lead the skills revolution which our economy needs. It provides an opportunity to influence the thinking and the planning – and thus the competitiveness – of the myriads of companies which make up our economy and which determine its performance.
    Governments cannot do that. But we can provide the resources – the Scottish Enterprise budget for this year is £450 million – for business people to deliver the results. I know that those who have given so much of their time to get the enterprise companies off the ground can rely on their colleagues throughout industry and commerce to feed in ideas, support, and fresh perspectives. I am sure that you will play your part in making the initiative a success.

    Mr. President, there is much more that could be said about the economy of Scotland and of Grampian in particular. You may well be relieved to hear I do not plan to say it.

    But there is one strand which sums up the message I would leave with you tonight. It is this; Grampian and Aberdeen have certainly had a great deal going for them – perhaps even more than other parts of Scotland. But their success is not, I believe, due to that alone. It is because they have made the most of their opportunities. The efforts of individual people and individual businesses have been paramount. That is why, Mr. President, I have very much enjoyed being with you and your members this evening. It is precisely the qualities which I see around me here that I want to foster not only in Scotland, but in the rest of the United Kingdom and indeed in Europe.

    I thank you, Mr. President, for your hospitality, and wish you and the members of the Chamber every success for the future.

  • Mr Major’s Presentation to Chris Moncrieff – 6 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s presentation made to Chris Moncrieff on the plane from Hong Kong to London on 6th September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have something very pleasant to do:

    One of our veteran travellers with us has a birthday in a day or so. Those of you who braved the trip to the Great Wall will have noticed two sights of great magnificence: the first was the Great Wall and the second was the speed with which Chris Moncrieff was running down it at one stage with no absolute certainty that he would ever stop! I wondered whether he was going to do a sponsored run of the Great Wall for the Press Association and I wasn’t entirely sure whether or not that was the case.

    It is Chris’s 60th birthday in just a day or so and I have here a small present for him with the very best wishes of No. 10 and the Press Office and it is – I might perhaps show it to you – a large engraved No. 10 jug in order that Chris can add water to any drink he deems necessary after dealing with all the political matters that he touches on with such skill.

    I would like, Chris, to offer you our congratulations on your birthday and present you with this small memento from No. 10. [Applause]

    CHRIS MONCRIEFF:

    Thank you very much indeed! I am most grateful, touched and surprised, I would like to say that when I was hurtling down the Gt. Wall of China, I was rescued by the Prime Minister from a fate worse than death for which I am eternally grateful; I was thereafter followed very closely by a Chinese detective who held my arm in a vice-like grip throughout the rest of the visit to the Wall. I wondered first whether I was about to be arrested or whether he thought I was too doddery to complete the walk on my own – I rather hoped it was the former!

    Thank you very much indeed, one and all; I am very pleased! [Applause]

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 6 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made in an interview on board a plane from Hong Kong to London on Friday 6th September 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether there would be a November General Election].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is bound to be this sort of speculation as we move into the fifth term of Parliament, but I am in no particular rush. I am confident that the economy is beginning to turn round; the early signs are there. As we have always said, we expected the recovery in the second half of the year and I think it will increasingly become apparent that that judgement is right.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he wanted his own mandate].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will have the verdict of the country at some stage before next June; whether it happens to be this autumn or whether it is next spring, isn’t really material. I think one has to pick the right moment for an election; there are many things to consider and I will consider them all very carefully.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was being cautious].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you would be very surprised if I wasn’t. In due course we will have an election but I’ll announce when it is when I am ready to do so.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Britain was leaving recession].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it is surprising that people are beginning to feel a little better about the economy. It has been a tough recession and I understand that; a number of people have been hurt by the recession and I am very well aware of that but what is now happening is I think people have perceived that interest rates have fallen from 15 percent to 10.5 percent, inflation has just about halved from 10.9 percent to 5.5 percent; I think there is now an expectation that inflation will continue to fall and I agree with that expectation, but now business itself and the consumer are beginning to sense that a recovery is now no longer very far away. I agree with that judgement and that, of course, explains the economic optimism.

    It isn’t going to be a sudden bound into a great boom and now would that be good for the economy, but I think that our judgement was right. We have seen the worst of the recession behind us. I think it will become apparent that we are moving out of the recession.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on Plane from Hong Kong – 6 September 1991

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s on-the-record statement on the plane from Hong Kong to London, held on 6th September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Perhaps I should firstly congratulate those survivors who have managed the complete trip to United States, the Soviet Union, China and also Hong Kong; I hope you are going to get a few hours off when you eventually get back.

    I thought it might be useful just to cover some of the matters we need to carry forward as a result of the discussions of the last few days. I think we have discussed the follow-up to the United States visit before and I need not go over that again.

    On the Soviet Union, I have now sent messages to the Heads of Government of all the G7 countries, reporting on the discussions I had there and my impressions there. This is fairly standard practice amongst us; everyone is immensely interested in what is happening in the Soviet Union and we try and concert our opinions and the information we have as much as possible.

    In terms of practical follow-up, you may know that John Gummer had the first meeting with the Food Consortium Group in London yesterday so that we might be able to move forward to providing some practical food assistance to the Soviet Union during this winter. I don’t think that is going to be needed for a while but there are quite a lot of arrangements to be made, firstly to determine what is needed, secondly to determine how to get it there and thirdly, to determine how actually to distribute it inside the Soviet Union when we have dealt with the earlier matters so there is quite a lot of organisation to be put in hand.

    We are still in touch with the Soviet Union and with the IMF with a view to encouraging an early meeting between them; that seems to us to be a useful way to proceed. IMF advice is needed, the Soviet Union are clearly keen to have that advice; and we are trying to push that meeting as speedily as we possibly can.

    The expert discussions have been continuing with the Soviet Union, mainly with the new group who are looking after economic matters, Mr. Yavlinsky in particular, to decide how to deal with some of the other problems they have and identify precisely what they are and how serious they are because one point that can’t be emphasised too often is that there is still a great degree of uncertainty about what practical assistance is most appropriate at the present time.

    The Foreign Secretary, Douglas, will be going back to Moscow on Monday; he is going there for the Human Rights Conference but it is probable – overwhelmingly likely – that he will have meetings when he is there with President Gorbachev, Mr. Popov, Shevardnadze and a number of others; arrangements for that are not finalised yet but I hope we will get those finalised within a day and as soon as we have done that of course we will let you know in the usual way.

    I have one piece of good news for you that I am sure you will be pleased to hear. All of us had the opportunity of meeting Mrs. Gordievsky earlier this week and her family. I now have solid confirmation that she has been released; she is able to come home and she will be flying home to London today and will be in London with her family early this evening and will be met by Malcolm Caithness from the Foreign Office so that we can ensure that she is properly looked after. This has been a very long trail, as you know. It is many years since Margaret Thatcher first raised the question of Mrs. Gordievsky and her family with the Soviet Union; it is a matter we have persistently raised since; raised it with Mr. Shevardnadze when I was Foreign Secretary; Douglas has raised it repeatedly with Shevardnadze, Bessmertnykh and I have raised it also with President Gorbachev, so I think it does illustrate on human rights that persistent pressure eventually does pay off and that of course is a message we might take to heart for other parts of the world as well.

    On China, I am still awaiting confirmation that the Hong Kong pro-democracy demonstrator Lor Hi Sing [phon] is being released and has been released. We are pursuing that still in Peking. I think what we are looking for is not just a release on bail in China but a release from China back to Hong Kong. We have not yet got that; we are still pursuing it and we must wait and see how that turns out.

    In terms of following up the discussions we had in China, Douglas will be meeting Quian Qichen, the Chinese Foreign Minister, later this month in New York and he will carry forward a number of the matters that we were discussing there. We will also be in touch with a full briefing on events there and impressions there with Mrs. Thatcher who will be visiting Peking later on this month, Mr. Andreotti, the Prime Minister of Italy, who is also visiting Peking later this month with Mr. Kaifu who returned a couple of weeks ago from China and who was kind enough to send me his impressions and I think I will also be reporting to President Bush and Community Heads of Government on my impressions there and on the policy matters that we discussed during the last couple of days.

    On Hong Kong, the principal follow-up point is that the British/Chinese Joint Liaison Group – that is the official group that carries forward all the detailed discussions that flow from the Joint Declaration – will be meeting later on this month in London both to carry forward their normal discussions and to firm-up details on a number of the matters we agreed in principle in Peking earlier this week.

    The principal impression on Hong Kong, I think, is one of very great importance: there was no doubt in my mind, from the businessmen I talked to in Hong Kong, from the Governor, from the people we met at the university and elsewhere, that there is now a very great degree of confidence there. There is a great deal of confidence amongst the business community; they feel much more secure now that the work in the Joint Liaison Group is carried forward and much more confident about future investment. I hope that confidence extends to British investors as well. The airport project will be very large and I think there are many opportunities for people to submit tenders and l hope they are competitive tenders.

    So those are the principal follow-up points. I can’t claim to you that that is an exclusive list but I think those are the principal points we need to follow up from the meetings over the last few days.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at a Community Lunch in Hong Kong – 5 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at a community lunch held at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre on Thursday 5th September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr. Chief Secretary:

    Thank you very much indeed for that very generous introduction.

    I am very conscious of one thing as I arrive at the rostrum at the moment: I am very conscious that it is only my speech that stands between you and lunch and I promise I shan’t forget that and will be mercifully brief but may I say firstly, that I am very delighted to be here, to be back in Hong Kong. It is many years since I first came and many years in fact since I was last here and I have been able to look with huge interest and the most tremendous admiration at what you have achieved here. We see it from afar but I think it is only when you come and see it, you see the enormous development that there has been here, the tremendous success of Hong Kong, that you realise fully why it is such a unique and remarkable place and I am delighted to be here today.

    There is no doubt about the changes you have made since last I came here. In those days, many years ago, cricket was played at Central and it seemed to me then that the tallest building in sight was the Hilton Hotel though I doubt one could say that today. There was no cross-harbour tunnel, no mass transit railway, the new towns in the new territories did not exist and the hillsides were covered with squatter villages, and how it has changed. Now, much of Hong Kong looks more like Manhattan or perhaps for greater accuracy I might say Manhattan looks like much of Hong Kong. One of the newest and perhaps – what shall I say? – most striking buildings belongs to the Standard. Chartered Bank, for which I worked for many years. It is a very striking construction.

    In twenty-five years, your community of Hong Kong has made stunning progress. Despite your small geographic size – though I am bound to say each time I come you seem to have reclaimed a little more and become just a little bit bigger – you are now the eleventh largest trading economy in the world. My priority and my reason for being here today is to ensure that Hong Kong can continue to work its miracle, that you can continue your success in conditions of stability, justice and freedom; that is the British Government’s policy and it will remain so in the future.

    Earlier this week, I visited Peking. Frankly, it was not the easiest visit to embark upon. We have shared interests with China, important shared interests but fewer shared values. There were many critics of the visit but I profoundly believe that those critics were wrong. It was right for me to go and it was right for Hong Kong that I went, I say that because my essential objective was to work for the success of the Joint Declaration and for the future of Hong Kong; that could not be done from afar and it could not be done without contacts with the Chinese at the very highest level.

    I believe it is worth setting out what we have achieved in the talks leading up to my visit to Peking and in the discussions I held with Li Peng and other Chinese leaders earlier this week:

    First, we have the Memorandum of Understanding on the airport. That is a crucial document, a document that secures the airport that Hong Kong needs for its future development as one of the great financial and trading centres of the world. Without it, Hong Kong would have been hamstrung, confidence would have dwindled. Now that the document is signed, work can go speedily ahead on all the airport core projects but the Memorandum does more than that: it opens the way to significantly improved cooperation with China in the interests of Hong Kong.

    Secondly, we have secured clear-cut public Chinese reaffirmation of their commitment to honour the Joint Declaration in letter and in spirit.

    Thirdly, we have set up a mechanism to end the blockage on productive discussion in the Joint Liaison Group. The Chinese have undertaken to give greater priority than ever before to the work of the Group and this will enable us to reach decisions more speedily and in those areas where it is difficult to reach decisions – and there will always be some areas of that sort – the matters in dispute will now be referred to the regular meetings we have established between the Chinese Foreign Minister and Douglas Hurd and if that fails, I can promise you that I will seek to deal with the matter myself directly with the Chinese.

    Fourthly, we have obtained an extremely important agreement in principle on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal. Its judges will be appointed as Hong Kong judges are now on the recommendation of the independent Judicial Services Commission; that guarantees the continued independence of the judiciary; no-one here, I believe, will need telling how important that is and contrary to some speculation this morning, there is no disagreement on how to tackle the question of overseas judges.

    Fifthly, we have agreement for Hong Kong to make its own investment, promotion and protection agreements; there is no doubt or dispute about that.

    Sixthly, we have cleared the way for a new Consulate General. Our intention is to build such a Consulate and not just lease premises. We will demonstrate not just to Hong Kong but to people beyond Hong Kong the confidence we have in the Territory and its future not merely in the approach to 1997 but well beyond it.

    I am confining myself here to things we have actually achieved, things now safely and securely under our belts. That does not mean there has not been considerable effort and significant progress on other matters but I will leave them, if I may, to subsequent bulletins.

    As it is, we have been able to promote Hong Kong’s interests in a substantial way and at the same time to express very firmly to the Chinese our concern on certain aspects of the internal situation in that country. We have also been able to discuss with them our common responsibilities as nuclear powers and also as permanent members of the Security Council.

    I understand very well the concern that people here feel that Britain will no longer have its traditional role in Hong Kong after 1997 and it is true we shall not. The sovereignty of Hong Kong will pass to China after 1997 – there is no way of avoiding that – but we had a choice between an unqualified transfer with no protection at all for Hong Kong and the Joint Declaration with a whole array of detailed provisions securing Hong Kong’s freedoms and way of life for at least fifty years, an international treaty to which Chinese leaders this week reaffirmed their commitment.

    We shall after 1997 no longer have our historic responsibility for Hong Kong. That is true but in no sense is that the end of the story. The guarantees in the Joint Declaration will still apply; the Joint Liaison Group goes on until the year 2000; but there is something else: the ending of responsibility for Hong Kong will not mean that what happens here ceases to matter to us. Long after 1997, the people of Hong Kong will have a strong and a staunch friend in the United Kingdom. We shall remain investors; we shall remain trading partners; we shall watch, as the world will, the implementation of the Joint Declaration to which Britain and China are both committed and as for the immediate future, many problems remain and the Governor and members of EXCO have briefed me thoroughly on them.

    I would, if I may, like to pay a very sincere tribute here to the Hong Kong Government, to the Governor, to you Chief Secretary and to the entire Civil Service for their tireless commitment to promote the interests all the people of Hong Kong. The dedication and the efficiency of the Hong Kong Government are typical of Hong Kong as a whole.

    A crucial element in laying the foundations for Hong Kong’s future success is constitutional development. Next week, the LEGCO elections will take place. For the first time, there will be directly-elected members of LEGCO. Also for the first time the new LEGCO will have a majority of elected members. I hope there will be a very large turn-out. I know that some think the pace of democratisation has not been fast enough, others think it has been too fast, but we have agreed with the Chinese a rising curve of directly-elected seats stretching well beyond 1997. It is never possible to carry out changes of this kind with universal agreement. I know, as I indicated a moment ago, that some in Hong Kong are concerned that the changes have come about too quickly and that others believe they have been too slow; some think that directly-elected LEGCO members may have a destabilising effect, others feel precisely the reverse, I understand all those concerns and the others that are rightly being voiced but I trust the people of Hong Kong to show the sense of responsibility and other qualities necessary to make a success of the changes we have put in hand. We have struck a balance in the constitutional changes and I profoundly believe that the balance we have struck is the right balance in the interests of Hong Kong.

    To those who are directly elected, let me just say this: once elected, you will gain a good deal of power but you will also have a great deal of responsibility, a responsibility that will impose obligations; you will need to carefully balance that as you take your decisions in the future.
    Throughout the whole world at present, momentous changes are taking place. For the last two days, I have been discussing them in Peking; on Sunday, I was discussing them in Moscow; and last week in the United States and I took the opportunity whilst in the United States of thanking President Bush for his support for the renewal of Most Favoured Nation status for China which is so critically important also for Hong Kong. That is something we are all working hard to bring about – I hope that we shall be successful.

    Chief Secretary, I don’t under-estimate for a single moment the challenges to Hong Kong in the approach to 1997. You will have to show courage and confidence every day but you are not alone. Our job is to make the road to 1997 and beyond as smooth, as stable and the destination as secure as we possibly can; that is why it was right to visit Peking. The majority of people in Britain understand that need to protect Hong Kong’s interests. So do I, so does Douglas Hurd, so do all of us in the British Government and that is what we will continue to do to safeguard Hong Kong’s future, its prosperity and its freedoms; it matters to us and we will discharge our responsibilities.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Hong Kong – 5 September 1991

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s Press Conference in Hong Kong on Thursday 5th September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is very good to be back in Hong Kong, it is many years since I have worked here and I have been fascinated to see the very remarkable changes that there have been during that period.

    Last evening we had the opportunity to fly by helicopter over Hong Kong and the development of Hong Kong is perhaps the most visible evidence of its success as a commercial centre and above all as a place where human enterprise and all other forms of enterprise and ingenuity have flourished in recent years. The people of Hong Kong can justly and rightly be proud of their achievements.

    Hong Kong’s continued success is one of my government’s first priorities, we want to see Hong Kong prosper as a centre of freedom and enterprise up to and beyond 1997, that was why I went to Peking and I should like to report on my discussions there.

    I went to China essentially for the sake of Hong Kong and I would like to remind you of what that visit achieved.

    First, we have the Memorandum of Understanding on the airport, work can now go ahead on the airport core projects, all of them. The Memorandum opens the way to significantly improved cooperation with China in the interests of Hong Kong.

    Second, we have secured clear cut public Chinese reaffirmation of their commitment to honour the Joint Declaration in letter and in spirit.

    Thirdly, we have established a mechanism to end the blockage on productive discussions in the Joint Liaison Group.

    Fourthly, we have obtained an extremely important agreement in principle on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal.

    And fifthly, we have confirmation of the right of Hong Kong to make its own investment promotion and protection agreements.

    And sixthly, we have cleared the way for a new Consulate General, we intend to build such a Consulate and not just to lease premises.

    I was accompanied to Peking by the Governor and other officials from the Hong Kong Government. Today I was able to brief EXCO on the outcome and I believe it is fair to say that all the members of EXCO expressed great satisfaction at what had been achieved. I was able to tell them that all the Chinese leaders I had met had volunteered their gratitude for the tremendously generous help which Hong Kong had provided for the victims of the recent floods.

    Yesterday I also visited High Island Detention Centre, reading about it is not the same as seeing it. What you realise above all when you go to a camp is that these are not just statistics but fellow human beings, this is a human problem which requires a humane solution.

    The influx of Vietnamese boat people has posed enormous problems for Hong Kong. Hong Kong has coped efficiently and above all humanely. It has not been easy for Hong Kong to preserve the policy of first asylum but one of the reasons why so many countries around the world are prepared to speak up for Hong Kong and what it stands for is because of Hong Kong’s record on this and on other issues. It is an indictment of the policies of the Vietnamese government that the boat people left their country in the first place, it is a credit to Hong Kong that you have provided accommodation, health care and education for so many people.

    A substantial minority of the Vietnamese boat people are refugees. Under the comprehensive plan of action those who are refugees have a right to be resettled elsewhere in the world, and they are. But for most economic migrants Hong Kong does not have the capacity to accommodate them forever, they will have to return home.

    But they must be able to return home without fear of reprisals. We are negotiating with the new Vietnamese government for the establishment of centres that would be internationally managed and under the control of United Nations agencies. Those who are screened out as non-refugees will be able to return to those centres in the first instance, that is the best way forward.

    Next week there will be elections in Hong Kong. For the first time there will be directly elected members of LEGCO. Also for the first time the new LEGCO will have a majority of elected members. This is the first point in a rising curve of directly elected seats which will, with agreement with the Chinese, continue up to and beyond 1997.

    Of course we need to discuss this matter with the Chinese if progress is to be sustained. We shall want to discuss with them at the right time and in the light of the experience gained this year the arrangements for the elections in 1995.

    No visitor can fully share the challenge which Hong Kong faces as we approach 1997. The people of Hong Kong have to live with that reality every day, sovereignty will revert to China in 1997 and it is Hong Kong and China who will have to make a reality of the concept of one country and two systems.

    But I believe the Joint Declaration agreed in 1984 is the best basis for Hong Kong’s future. There will be difficulties, as there are in any relationship, let alone one that requires two different political and economic systems to work together.

    But we are not saying to the people of Hong Kong: here is the Joint Declaration, now it is up to you to make it work. Making it work is top priority for me and for my government. That was why we have agreed to intensify our contacts with Peking and raise the level at which they are regularly conducted, that was why going to Peking was necessary and worthwhile.

    A week ago I left the world’s largest free enterprise economy. Today I shall be leaving a somewhat smaller but equally enterprising market economy. In between I visited Moscow and Peking. One country is exploring the path of political reform, the other is concentrating on economic reform. The fact is that both are necessary and I doubt that one can develop fully without the other.

    It is fitting that I should end this eventful week here in Hong Kong where your economy is booming and where you are about to take a first momentous step in the process of representative government. I have found it a most useful and worthwhile visit and am delighted I was able to come. I am now happy to take your questions.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (South China Morning Post):

    Prime Minister, you said that you went to China for the sake of Hong Kong and for two fundamental issues – human rights and democracy in Hong Kong – bearing in mind China’s repeated warning that it may repeal Hong Kong’s [Indistinct] up to 1997 and China’s persistent refusal to recognise the Hong Kong Executive and Legislative Council, did you take up these issues with Li Peng?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I spoke specifically to Mr Li Peng about the desirability of meeting EXCO and about meeting OMELCO and the fact that there would need to be a direct relationship between them and I hoped that would come about. This is a matter we have raised with them and a matter we will continue to raise with them.

    On other matters, insofar as democracy in Hong Kong is concerned, we are starting off with the first directly elected members in just a week or so. That is a tremendous advance, it is part of a rising curve, I think we will get through those elections, we will see how they are sustained, how they develop, and I think nobody should under-estimate the impact that these elections will make even though on this occasion it is only 18 seats out of the full total of 60.

    QUESTION:

    What about human rights given that it has been about 7 years now since we signed the Joint Declaration that China has yet to become a signatory to the international Conference on Human Rights, have you actually asked the Chinese leader to take action and if not why not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think most people will have known from reading the press over the last few days that I certainly did discuss the question of human rights with the Chinese, they are well aware of my view, I doubt they have ever been made so well aware of anyone’s views on human rights in the past before. So they are very well aware of my concern in human rights and they are equally well aware in terms of their responsibilities at home and abroad that this is a matter of rising interest around the world, not just in the case of China, but in the case of countries all around the world where human rights are not at the standard that we believe they should be. There is a searchlight of public and international opinion upon the question of human rights, the Chinese are absolutely aware of that and yes I did discuss the matter with them.

    QUESTION (Mike Brunson, ITN):

    I wonder if I could tempt you to break all the conventions and to discuss British politics while you are on an overseas trip and to say whether after a successful week you are tempted to call an early election when you get back home?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You can tempt but I may not rise to the temptation, Michael. I think speculation like that at this stage of a Parliament is always inevitable, I just hope not too many people will take that almost inevitable day to day speculation too seriously. We still have work to do, when I judge it right we will have a General Election. But I do not think it would be in anyone’s interest for me to respond to day to day speculation.

    QUESTION:

    Do you still want to make it your intention to see the intergovernmental conferences through to the end of December as you have said in the past?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have always made it clear that I think the negotiations that we shall have in the two intergovernmental conferences are vitally important for the future of the United Kingdom. I want to be certain that I am in a position to negotiate for my country in those conferences.

    QUESTION (Hong Kong Economic Times):

    My question is in two parts, first since your visit to China was quite successful and in the Soviet Union, but can I say that you are failing to deliver the G7 message in which the most important and subtle message to China, that is that socialism has no future?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that since we have just been talking about a British General Election I should take you over to Britain and you can explain to the British electorate that socialism has no future, a point that I most assuredly agree with in terms of the United Kingdom.

    As I indicated a moment or so ago, I think economic and political reform are inevitable around the world and that they will go hand in hand together. It is for each country to work out its own salvation in that event but that there is a worldwide movement for people to have greater political and economic freedoms I am in no doubt, it is a movement that I welcome, it is a movement the G7 collectively welcomes, it is a movement that we are seeing in all parts of the globe, I think it is irreversible.

    QUESTION:

    The second part of my question is that the people in Hong Kong are quite concerned about who is the next Governor of Hong Kong, can you confirm that the present Governor, Sir David Wilson, will leave next year and if that is the case who is the best possible candidate for this job?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Was that an application? I can confirm to you that there is no vacancy for the Governorship of Hong Kong. Sir David Wilson has done and is doing and will continue to do an excellent job for the people of Hong Kong. Again it is a matter, I know speculation arises from time to time and no doubt whatever is said it will arise again, but I believe he has done an excellent job and is doing an excellent job for the people of Hong Kong and anything beyond that is pure speculation.

    QUESTION (Sally Blyth, RTHK)

    I wonder if you could reaffirm your government’s assurance that you will go back to China to try and increase the number of directly elected seats to the Legislative Council if these elections this year prove to be a success? And secondly, can you define what you mean when the government means a success or whether elections are satisfactory, what do you mean by this, how are you going to judge whether they have been a success?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the difficulties of judging the future is you have to see what happens and then for a judgment upon it when it has happened. So I think it is impossible to provide a hypothetical answer to that particular question. I think on both parts of your question we have to see what happens in the elections, we have to review what happens, we then have to consider the views of those people who have been elected, their views are very important, and I do not think it is for me to make judgments that are judgments that are properly to be made after people have been elected when I have had the opportunity of hearing their views after that election. That after all is what democracy is about. And I think if I was to say well whatever happens in the election I have made up my mind I am going to do this, that or the other thing after the election, I might legitimately be asked whether I was not going to consult the people who are elected, and I am. So I will have to defer my answer until I have had those discussions.

    QUESTION:

    Can I follow that up?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Sally there is nothing more I can say, I think I have covered both parts of those questions and I will have to see what happens in the election and hear the views of the people who are elected.

    QUESTION (Brian Barron):

    What is wrong with having full elections, full democracy in this colony before 1997, is that a path that you yourself personally would really like to follow, would that not safeguard Hong Kong before Peking’s takeover?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had those discussions previously and we have reached an agreement with the Chinese on the number of people who are elected. I am not going to go back over past discussions, I do not think that is productive. What we actually need to do is to make sure we are on a democratic path and it is sustainable and will be sustained amid general agreement up to the period in 1997 and beyond the period in 1997. It is always an attractive thought to say: what if and could we not have a little bit more? But we have had an agreement that has been determined some time ago, we can look at the matter again after we have had the elections in the way I described a moment or so again.

    The Foreign Secretary recalls to my mind that I did not respond to an earlier question on the Bill of Rights, I apologise for that, it was in a welter if I may say of a number of questions under the guise of one.

    Hong Kong has persisted with its Bill of Rights and I think that is absolutely right. That has not been questioned or criticised by China during my visit at all and they are well aware of what has actually happened.. And the whole thrust of my discussions in Peking is that the Chinese government are going to have to take great care over human rights generally and respect them, respect them everywhere, but of course that most certainly means respect them in Hong Kong in all their aspects. I am sorry I missed that point earlier.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, I believe you have seen the political party protests outside the CGO this morning and I would like to know if you think those radical democracy movements will affect the stability of Hong Kong and also, do you think that the stability of Hong Kong is the most important issue during the transition period?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the stability of Hong Kong is vitally important, stability in the sense of continued investment, stability in the sense of security of mind of the people who live here, stability in the sense of a belief by people both in Hong Kong and beyond Hong Kong that the future prosperity of the Territory is assured. I think that is absolutely critical.

    As to the demonstrators who were outside the meeting I had with EXCO this morning, we are in the middle of an election in Hong Kong. I understand that. I have lived through elections before in my own country and all sorts of demonstrations are held during elections and people express all sorts of views in elections. It is very prudent for people who are not part of that particular election and who are not resident in the territory in which the election is taking place not to offer comment on it and I don’t propose to comment on the demonstration or on the comments of individual people facing election next week.

    RICHARD BESTICK (SKY NEWS):

    In very broad terms, do you believe in your stop over here in Hong Kong you have been successful in calming the very real fears about 1997?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we will have to wait and see how events settle down over the last few days. I can only say in the discussions I have had with people that there has been a very genuine welcome indeed for the fact that I went to Peking and for the outcome of that meeting in Peking; not just the outcome that I mentioned a few moments ago but of course the points that were set out in the joint communique that I signed and Li Peng signed on behalf of the Chinese Government; that reaffirmed the Joint Declaration, it reaffirmed the points that people in Hong Kong are concerned about and we advanced beyond that of course with the Court of Final Appeal which I know from my correspondence in England and discussions and advice I have had from the Governor and others in Hong Kong was a matter of huge concern to people here. I think there is a very warm welcome for the fact that we are now going to proceed with the Consulate and it will be built; it is an indication of the commitment that we have to Hong Kong up to 1997 and beyond 1997 and more than that, it is an indication of the confidence as well as the commitment that we have in Hong Kong.

    There are other matters still to be determined; there were expert discussions this morning, as you may know, on defence lands and they will continue; there are other matters like air service agreements which are still to be determined but there is now a continuing debate upon these issues and I believe it fair to say that there has been a very warm welcome for what was achieved in the period up to Peking and at Peking and I think there is enormous relief that we now have a continuing mechanism that will deal with those matters that are currently outstanding and those others matters that are bound to arise and that are not at the moment foreseen between now and 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] on the one hand but they, also feel in Hong Kong that it might give the Chinese more opportunity to get involved with Hong Kong internal matters between now and the hand-over, i.e. some kind of unofficial joint administration. Do you agree?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made the point quite specifically in the speech that I made when we signed the Memorandum when the Chinese Government were there that there is no question of matters like condominium this side of 1997; that point was clearly made in the Report; it was of course originally in the Joint Declaration – that has been reaffirmed and I said that, not hidden away in a corner but actually there with the Chinese leaders beside me.

    But there are areas where decisions taken straddle 1997 and are very important and I think people will regard it as wise to consult on some of those issues. That was always foreseen in the Joint Declaration and that is what we are doing. It is in the interests of Hong Kong to make sure there is – to go back to the earlier question – that stability. Everything doesn’t suddenly stop and start again in 1997; many things straddle 1997 and we must ensure that stability is genuine and real and that means a degree of consultation. It doesn’t mean that the responsibilities have moved away; it means one consults in a practical and pragmatic way.

    ANGUS FOSTER (FINANCIAL TIMES):

    Prime Minister, can you explain why you seem prepared to stand up to China on human rights but you are not prepared to stand up to them on democracy for Hong Kong and can you or can you not re-state the previous UK policy which was to go to Peking after these elections to negotiate an increase from upwards of 20 seats for 1995?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The premise of your question is provocative and wrong. When the agreement with China was reached over 18 seats, you can’t sit there in your seat and say China was offering 18 seats for direct elections; that was a matter that we negotiated with China and we got a good deal better negotiation than the Chinese originally expected or that most people expected here, so there was no question of us not, in the emotive terms you put it, standing up to China on that issue.

    The people we are standing up for are the people of Hong Kong in a way that is right for Hong Kong and is sustainable for Hong Kong and we are perfectly prepared, as I have said on a number of occasions already in this press conference, after we have had the elections this year to discuss with the people who were elected and review the situation and see what happened and make our judgements there and nothing in our policy upon that has changed.

    QUESTION:

    You have made a lot of comments about how much you have done for Hong Kong. Would you care to comment on the comments of one of Hong Kong’s leading lawyers and the leader of what is almost certainly the most popular political party in this Territory, Mr, Martin Lee, that your Memorandum of Understanding is actually in breach of the Joint Declaration and would you care to comment on the fact that it is now two years since the airport project was first announced and at that time there was no suggestion either from your Government or from the Hong Kong Government that China would even need to be consulted let alone that you would have to go to Peking yourself and sign a statement which Mr. Martin Lee believes is in breach of the Joint Declaration?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have heard many of the things Mr. Lee has said over the last few days and some of them have been very supportive of what we have done and others have been less supportive but as I said to the earlier question, we are in the midst of an election in Hong Kong and I am not going to get drawn into a debate on comments from anyone running for election in Hong Kong, whether Mr. Lee or anybody else who would hold contrary views; that is not for me in the middle of an election period.

    QUESTION (ORIENTAL DAILY):

    After you signed the Memorandum of Understanding, the Chinese side has said that what is stipulated in the Memorandum will serve as a model for future problems when we want to have solutions. Do you agree with that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What the Memorandum is there for is to enable the airport, which is a huge development that is absolutely critical for the future of Hong Kong, to go ahead with general agreement. The problem is whatever would have happened had there not been general agreement and had not the Memorandum been signed. We could have either continued with the airport unilaterally or we could have scrapped the airport. Many people, if we had scrapped it, would have said; “Splendid! What a wonderfully virile thing to do!” but Hong Kong would have suffered if we had done that. If one hadn’t reached an agreement, many people would have said: “Well, there is a huge disagreement between China and Hong Kong and Britain on this issue; is it safe for us actually to invest in the airport?” so one has to deal with the reality and it was wise, in the interests of the investors and in the interests of Hong Kong, to make sure we had an agreement. Now that is enshrined in the Memorandum of Understanding and that means the airport project can go ahead and it is secure in the eyes of the investors and it is welcomed in Hong Kong and welcomed beyond Hong Kong and will have a very practical effect of encouraging people to be more confident about other future investment in Hong Kong but I see no difficulties in the way in which the Memorandum has been reached or signed and I think it is very much in the interests of Hong Kong that we signed it.

    TONY YIEWSLEY (AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION):

    I have got a very easy one for you. It has been a very hectic week and you have been by all accounts very successful in some areas. Do you think you have finally shrugged off this tag that I keep reading about that your name is Eric rather than John Major? It has been a tag given to you by the British press, not by the Australian press.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not a tag that I had heard, not a tag that I would recognise.

    QUESTION (HONG KONG COMMERCIAL DAILY):

    Britain and China have agreed to intensify efforts to solve the problem of the Vietnam boat people and will support all steps to help Hong Kong to solve the problem and I would like to know: can Hong Kong decide all by her own to take [Indistinct] steps and if Hong Kong decides a way to solve the [Indistinct] problem, will Britain fully support this decision?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not for China to stop decisions that are being taken on the question of boat people and China also wants to help and assist with the problem that Hong Kong faces with boat people arriving, some of them of course arriving across the mainland and going straight back, others arriving in the harbours. We are discussing regularly – by “We” I mean the British Government and the Hong Kong Government – how best to deal with it both in the interests of Hong Kong and to deal with the very great human problem of the people who are coming here and I set out in my opening remarks the way in which we feel we should proceed from now on and we are in discussion at the moment with the Vietnamese Government about the establishment under the control and management of United Nations agencies an internationally-managed centre in Vietnam to which those boat people who are not refugees would be able to return and that is the right way – it is the only way – for us to proceed and the only way I think for Hong Kong to proceed that would be acceptable for Hong Kong or for others.

    PAUL REYNOLDS (BBC):

    Could I pick up on a question which was asked but not, I think, answered and that was to do with the Memorandum of Understanding being in breach of the Declaration and the fact that China has to be consulted now on the airport project when it was not two years ago? These are substantive points.

    I wonder how you can persuade people you are not presenting an over-optimistic picture of China’s intentions, given your own very strong remarks and worries about human rights there and that to have the Joint Declaration reaffirmed is no great deal when we were told in 1984 this was going to be the deal, so are you perhaps not being over-optimistic and how do you deal with those substantive complaints about the airport agreement giving too much influence to China?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it is a matter of routine to have it reaffirmed and for a variety of reasons and I will set out those reasons for you:

    The principal reason is that I have now had the opportunity of going to China, sitting down face-to-face with the Chinese leaders and having them reaffirm the terms of this Joint Declaration to me. If there is any dispute or any difficulties at any stage, I am now in a position to say to the Chinese leaders: “I sat down opposite you and you reaffirmed the terms of the Joint Declaration! No question of misunderstanding; no question of circumstances having changed; no question of changing times and the efflux of time! We sat down together in 1991 and we reaffirmed all the terms of the Joint Declaration!” I don’t think that is an insignificant thing and in view of the continuing confidence we have established, I think it was very worthwhile.

    One particularly important point of those fresh contacts is the regular contact there will be between the Foreign Secretary and the Chinese Foreign Minister on matters of dispute and of course on wider matters too but if matters get blocked in the Joint Liaison Group, if there are matters that officials find themselves unable to solve because of the political connotation, there is now for the first time a direct link – that direct channel – between the two Foreign Secretaries to sort out that matter and if they are unable to do so, I am in a position to seek to sort it out myself with the Chinese leaders and in a better position to do so because I have sat down opposite them and reaffirmed myself the terms of the Joint Declaration.

    The point about the Memorandum of Understanding, which I think is wrong, being in breach of the Joint Declaration: I don’t believe that is the case but the fact is in the airport project there is 40 percent of private investment, it is a multi-billion dollar project, 40 percent of it is private investment. Those private investors want to be reassured beyond 1997. That reassurance is there in the Memorandum of Understanding. Without that reassurance, the practical position is that they may not have come forward with that 40 percent of private investment and then there would have been no airport and then there would have been no boost to the confidence of investors in Hong Kong and the people who live in Hong Kong, so it was not in any way a change from the Joint Declaration and it is in my view unwise to say so. It was a practical reaffirmation that it was secure and safe for people to invest in the airport project and it has been enabled to go ahead.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I answered questions about the Governor earlier and I am not going to enter into speculation either way about the Governor. I don’t think that would be at all wise or fair on the Governor.

    QUESTION (ATV NEWS, HONG KONG):

    A former senior government official here has proposed that the newly-elected Legislature be given the power to ratify decisions reached by the Joint Liaison Group. Do you support that idea?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would want to consider that idea and I would want to discuss it with the people who are elected. I am not going to respond to that without some careful thought.

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    The United Democrats of Hong Kong are apparently headed for victory in the coming elections. If they gain a significant proportion of the seats, would you agree that the Governor should put either one of their directly-elected members or a liberal voice into the Executive Council here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Two points: firstly, anyone who thinks I am going to anticipate the result of an election in Hong Kong is wholly wrong; and secondly, I am not going to anticipate what the Governor might do on his own authority; that is a matter for the Governor and not for me; that is why he is there.