The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1996

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Hong Kong – 2 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Hong Kong on Saturday 2nd March 1996. Parts of the interview were not able to be clearly transcribed.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I just say a word or two at the beginning of this return visit to Hong Kong? I am delighted to have the opportunity of coming back and talking to the Governor and EXCO and LEGCO, I hope a large collection of businessmen and many of the people of Hong Kong, about the work that still needs to be done between now and June 1997, and of course the position thereafter. The successful transition of Hong Kong remains one of our most important foreign policy objectives. There is, I know, a great deal still to be done.

    What I would like to say at the outset this evening is that we will do whatever we possibly can to ease that transition between now and the end of July 1997, but even after that date no-one should imagine that Britain’s interest in Hong Kong, or commitment to Hong Kong, is suddenly going to disappear, that emphatically is not going to be the case and I shall be wishing to discuss that and other matters during this particular visit.

    I am looking forward to the opportunity of having a series of discussions. I met the Chinese Prime Minister yesterday, I shall certainly be reporting on that to EXCO and LEGCO, and I will look forward to speaking to you all at greater length later on during the visit.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Can you tell us something about your discussions with ….

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope I will have something to say that will be helpful about that in the next day or so, we had a very satisfactory discussion, but I don’t think I will set it all out tonight.

    QUESTION:

    Visa free passports?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    All for later in the trip. Let me set these things out later in a satisfactory coherent fashion, I don’t want to touch on those tonight.

    QUESTION:

    Will you be holding a press conference during your trip?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I shall be having press conferences throughout the visit, yes.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am meeting LEGCO in private, I want to talk to LECCO in private.

    QUESTION:

    Return of the boat people in Hong Kong …. do the British side have confidence in resolving the problem before 1997?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope we will be able to make a lot of progress on that, that was the purpose of my discussion this morning with the Vietnamese Prime Minister, it is a very important matter. A huge amount has been done, that largely began to fall away after external intervention. I hope that we will be able to find a way of moving it forward.

    QUESTION:

    In your talks with the Chinese Premier…..

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, there were no bargains in the discussion I had with Premier Li Peng. We discussed a whole range of issues, some aspects of what he had to say were reassuring, there were some aspects where there is still a clear-cut difference between the British government and the Chinese government and that is a matter I will continue discussing with the Chinese. I look forward to further discussions with you later.

  • Mr Major’s On the Record Briefing in Thailand – 2 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing held in Bangkok on Saturday 2nd March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just at the outset say a little about the conference and why we had the conference. If one looks at the sheer scale of change in Asia and the changing relationship between Asia and Europe, the surprising thing really is that we haven’t had this conference many years ago. About 50 percent of Korean investment comes into Europe, comes into the UK; 40 percent of Japanese investment comes into the UK. So they are both very important countries both for bilateral trade but also in terms of investment.

    When one looks at the whole of the Asian block, we see their growth is a good deal higher than ours – by ours I mean Western Europe – their unemployment is a good deal lower than ours in Western Europe and their growth pattern is a good deal better.

    So there are a great deal I think of opportunities that lie in the Asian block that the European countries haven’t yet taken advantage of. And I think equally from the Asian point of view there is a great deal of technology and expertise in Western Europe that they could also link in with.

    The first thing I had the opportunity of doing when I arrived was to join in the signing of a deal worth something like 800 million US dollars with Trafalgar House, that is for a new steelworks in the area and it is I think the largest contract that the United Kingdom has had with Thailand at any stage. But I have no doubt that it is but the forerunner of others.

    Of the countries that attended this conference, something over half of the world’s GDP was actually represented by the countries present, so one can see the scale of the opportunities that were presented.

    In the conference itself I stressed the need for more trade liberalisation, more open markets, better educational, and cultural, and security links with Asia, and also the need for further tariffs and GATT reform and United Nations reform as well.

    The United Nations is very important to all of us, but the reality is unless the financial problems of the United Nations are solved, it is going to run out of money in November. So clearly reform is necessary and I reiterated many of the points that you have heard me make on previous occasions in different parts of the world about the need to put the United Nations’ finances on a sound footing and abolish those United Nations bodies that no longer serve a useful purpose.

    The next of these conferences will be a series of follow-up meetings between businessmen and others, but the next conference with the Asia-Europe group will be held in the United Kingdom in two years time.

    As a by-product of the meetings we have had here, I have had the opportunity of bilaterals with Helmut Kohl, Prime Minister Li Peng, the Prime Minister of Vietnam, the Prime Minister of Thailand, and of course Prime Minister Hashimoto this morning, we had a meeting this morning just after breakfast, and a series of informal exchanges with a number of the other Heads of Government.

    One of the most important things that actually comes out of most of these meetings is the opportunity to deal, in an informal setting, with bilateral matters rather than dealing either, with great respect, through officials or colleagues or over the phone.

    So it has been a very useful couple of days and I have no doubt that the conference that we have had here in the last couple of days is going to become institutionalised in the future.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Can you tell us about the meeting we understand you have had with Mr Bruton?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sorry, I also had a meeting with Mr Bruton. No, I can’t. We spoke for about 50 minutes. It was private stock-taking of where we have got and how we think things may develop, but neither of us are going to say anything publicly about the meeting, it was an entirely private meeting, just the two of us.

    QUESTION:

    Can you say whether you now agree with the Irish who seem to take the view that the Army Council statement the other day was not the last word on your joint communique on Wednesday and that it wasn’t a response to that, and do you take any encouragement from that if you do agree with it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will take encouragement when we see some positive response. We have been hearing cosy words from the IRA and their apologists for a long time. I am pretty fed up with the cosy words, I would like some positive action. So if that wasn’t their last word, good, but I will react further when I do get some further positive information from them. If it was a preliminary response then it was a very inefficient, ineffective and inappropriate preliminary response. If there is more to come, we will wait and see, but I will react when we have seen it. And what we really want now is not just friendly words, not the age-old Stalinist-type denunciations that we got the other night, but some practical indication that they understand the fears, the hopes, the ambitions of the people in Northern Ireland who have suffered from 25 years of their behaviour, that is what I want to see.

    INTERVIEWER:

    This seems a rather different tone of emphasis with what Mr Bruton is saying?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well you asked me my view, I have given you my view. My view is that I want to hear something positive from them. I don’t know whether their first reply was preliminary or not, we will have to wait and see. If there is more to come, good, let’s wait for it.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Are you ready to give them the benefit of the doubt?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will give them the benefit of the benefit when I see there is something to have doubt about. I think I have given them enough of the benefit of the doubt over the last few months. I have given Sinn Fein the opportunity to come into democratic politics. I want to see them take that opportunity. If they take that opportunity, all well and good, but if they don’t they needn’t expect that either John Bruton, or I, or the democratic process is going to hang around for them. We have set a timescale, we have set a timetable and we are going to proceed along that timetable, in that timescale with or without Sinn Fein and the IRA.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Can you foresee a meaningful and effective peace process which does not at some stage involve Sinn Fein?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Obviously it would be better with Sinn Fein. The reason we have gone to so much trouble to involve Sinn Fein is that it is obviously more effective with Sinn Fein. But if one is to take the view that you cannot proceed without Sinn Fein, what we are saying is that Sinn Fein and people who throw bombs about the place whenever they wish can put a block on the democratic process, and I don’t accept that, Parliament doesn’t accept that, the Irish parliament doesn’t accept that and John Bruton doesn’t accept that. So we would prefer to continue with them, I would prefer a ceasefire, I would prefer them to start behaving like democrats, I would prefer them to join in the talks and start acting constructively. But if they don’t, I am not prepared to let the whole thing grind to a halt while they behave in that fashion.

    QUESTION:

    Were you aware in advance of the terms of the visa for Gerry Adams, and how do expect the United States to approach that visit now that he is being allowed in?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That decision is a matter for the United States, it is not a matter for anybody else. What I understand is that the United States have provided a short-term visa, they made it clear that there must be no fund-raising and they have made it clear that like the British government and like the Irish government they will not meet Mr Adams at Ministerial level. That is their decision, it is a question for them. We have made our position clear in the United Kingdom, so have the Irish government. The American government in terms of not meeting Adams have taken precisely the same view.

    QUESTION:

    So you did know in advance?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to comment on inter-government information.

    QUESTION:

    In Hong Kong this weekend people are predicting you might get a rather bumpy ride. Do you have anything lined up for Hong Kong that might draw the sting from the protest there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    People in Hong Kong are concerned. I don’t find that remotely surprising. After very nearly 100 years of British sovereignty, the British control of Hong Kong comes to an end, that is what the law says, that is the reality of life, it comes to an end in 1997. And I think it would be astonishing if people weren’t concerned about what the position is going to be, and astonishing if they didn’t bring their concerns to the Governor in the first place and to British politicians when they visit, So I will try and deal with those concerns and try and respond to them as best I can. But I think the most appropriate way to do that is to do it when I am in Hong Kong.

    QUESTION:

    Did you make any progress on the question of the Vietnamese boat people when you were talking to the Prime Minister this morning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think so, but I will respond on that in Hong Kong as well. It was certainly a material part of our discussion.

    QUESTION:

    Why did Britain wait until the last few years of its colonial rule before granting Hong Kong its democracy, and wouldn’t China have been more likely to have accepted democracy if it had been brought in say in the ’70s or early ‘80s?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well there was no demand. It is all very well to look back and say why weren’t things done in the 1960s and 1970s, it is a very agreeable pastime to do so, but the circumstances change, people’s attitudes change, people’s demands change. There was no demand for those changes until one began to move into the mid-1980s and then we have moved as speedily as we can and we are very keen to see a proper system of democracy in place.

    The other point I should make clear, I think sometimes people have the impression that on the due date in 1997 China assumes sovereignty, Britain disappears and we lose all interest in Hong Kong. Well let me say to you that is emphatically not how I see it. I don’t think we are going to lose interest in Hong Kong. We have had a long-standing interest invested in Hong Kong, and I don’t just mean in terms of cash investment, I mean emotional interest in Hong Kong, for a very long period, and we will continue to have that interest in Hong Kong. We won’t have the legal responsibility, that is a matter of fact, but we will still retain that interest in Hong Kong, we will still have massive British investments in Hong Kong, we will still be a friend at the court of world opinion for Hong Kong, not just in the short term but for the long term. And I hope that point will become increasingly apparent to Hong Kong. They are not suddenly going to be divorced, ignored, cut adrift when China assumes sovereignty. The eyes of the whole world are going to be on Hong Kong. This is a unique circumstance and right across the world, starting in London but everywhere else right across the world, people will be looking to see what happens to Hong Kong and how events fall out in Hong Kong and looking after the interests of Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty.

    QUESTION:

    Li Peng’s spokesman made quite clear that the issue of LEGCO and its preservation was closed, he said that yesterday, in their interpretation of the bilateral that you had. That is obviously not your view but there is obviously the suspicion that one is going through the motions. How would you respond to that interpretation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course if there isn’t an agreement you can put it as you did, there is always the suspicion one is going through the motion. We deal with these matters very seriously and we are not going through the motions at all, we continue to negotiate seriously. And many of the things of course that you might have said to me two years ago were blocked, finished subjects with no progress are now behind us because they have been dealt with. So we regard them as live issues that we continue to negotiate about.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Bangkok – 2 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Bangkok on Saturday 2nd March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a word or two about the meeting with Mr Hashimoto. We have an extremely good trade and economic relationship with Japan these days and in our discussions this morning we looked at the opportunities for further investment, mutual investment in trade growth, and the Japanese Prime Minister confirmed again that they continue to the see the United Kingdom as the most important centre for Japanese investment in Europe. So I found that extremely reassuring and we see the way in which the Asia-Europe is going in precisely the same way and look forward to its further development. So it was a very satisfactory meeting.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Prime Minister, are you happy or unhappy with the American decision on Gerry Adams’s visa?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The decision on the visa is a matter for the United States. But as I understand it, the visa is for Adams to visit the United States, there is an exclusion, there is no possibility of fund-raising and neither will he be seeing anyone senior in the American administration. So the United States on that seem to have taken precisely the same line as the British government and the Irish government.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Don’t you think perhaps that this is the time for the Americans to be showing displeasure with Gerry Adams rather than giving him favours?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As I have said on every occasion in the past, whatever the American decision has been, it is a matter for the Americans and I have spelt out the circumstances in which the visa was granted, I think the other questions are for them.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you think they will put pressure on him, as you are putting pressure on him, to work for a resumption of the ceasefire, do you hope that Washington will do that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But the United States are doing that, the United States have been doing that continually and I have no doubt that they will continue to do it. They wish to see a ceasefire, they wish to see all-party talks begin and the have been very supportive of both the British government position and the Irish government position in that respect.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you have any expectation of a new statement from the IRA within the next week or so?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have no idea whether the IRA are going to make another statement. The statement they made the other evening was wholly inadequate, as I said at the time. We will have to wait and see. But the matter is for them, it is now a matter for them to decide. The option is there – they can decide to opt into a democratic process or they can exclude themselves, but it is their decision. I would prefer them to opt in on satisfactory conditions, but if they don’t we will continue without them.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Was Mr Bruton happy with your remarks the other day about the IRA Army Council’s response to the Downing Street agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would imagine he would have agreed with them, we haven’t spoken about them but I would imagine he would have agreed. He shares the same distaste for the way the IRA have behaved in recent years, as do most people.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Your backbenchers are incensed about the visa for Gerry Adams, what is your message to them? One of them at the moment is saying he can’t say whether President Clinton is either naive or stupid?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have said what I have to say about the visa, I have nothing more to say about that.

    INTERVIEWER:

    You are moving on to Hong Kong. What sort of reception are you expecting there? Chris Patten has had a pretty rough time over the last year or so?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is understandable that people in Hong Kong are concerned about what is going to happen at the change of sovereignty in 1997. I shall be seeking to listen both to what LEGCO have to say, hearing what Hong Kong opinion is and also talking to them about how the changes are proceeding and what may happen between now and 1997 and thereafter. So I look forward to the trip.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Will you have good news for Hong Kong citizens on visa-free entry to the United Kingdom and do you think Britain could cope with a large influx?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a large number of matters to discuss with people in Hong Kong but I will have to say what I have to say when I get there.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you have any comment on Ron Davies, the Shadow Welsh Secretary, who says the Prince of Wales is not fit to be King?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I heard of those comments out here. I am absolutely astonished that somebody who is in the Shadow Cabinet, and who would presumably be the Welsh Secretary in a Labour administration, can speak in this fashion, particularly about someone who cannot answer back. I think most people will regard that as a pretty distasteful way to behave.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you think Mr Blair should sack him?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a matter for Mr Blair, but he was unwilling to sack Mrs Harman for openly flouting Labour Party policy on education. I can’t imagine that Mr Davies speaks for the majority of people in the Labour Party, but that is a matter for Mr Blair. If he chooses to keep people who openly disagree with his policy, and openly disagree with what the majority opinion is of people in the country, that is a matter for him.

  • Mr Major’s On the Record Briefing in Thailand – 29 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing held in Bangkok on Thursday 29th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought it was probably better just to sit down for a few minutes And talk you through the scribbled notes I have made rather than a couple of minutes standing up dealing with one or two odd questions.

    I had a very worthwhile meeting with Li Peng. There are a series of different points I think I’d make:

    There has been a continuing improvement in British/Chinese relationships over the last year or so, quite markedly so. The Vice-Premier, Qichen, came to the United Kingdom in October, Malcolm Rifkind went to China in January and Michael Heseltine will be going back to China in May when we expect he will take with him the biggest business delegation I can ever recall leaving the UK of around 250 businessmen.

    Most of the discussion we had this evening was about Hong Kong, not all of it but most of it. There has been very welcome progress on a number of issues recently, let me list some of them:

    Better contacts between Chinese officials and Hong Kong civil servants; arrangements for the transfer of defence responsibilities. There are a number of outstanding matters: we agreed tonight that we will continue to accelerate the work with China to resolve the remaining issues before the hand-over.

    There are some areas where we still have concern over Hong Kong; one of them is the question of a bill of rights and the future of the legislature, LECCO. I said to the prime minister that Hong Kong’s success had been founded not only on economic success but on the rule of law and continuity and stability was a very important part of a successful transition in 1997.

    We touched on wider political dialogue. There was quite a substantial dialogue. We are both members of the Security Council of the UN of course, of the Permanent Five, and a range of other bilateral political contacts. We touched, of course, on human rights as we always do on these occasions and we touched on areas where we are looking for closer economic cooperation.

    In reply to my comments, the prime minister said that he too saw a marked improvement in the relations between Britain and China. He confirmed that after the hand-over in 1997 Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy; he confirmed that they Chinese government would not send its own officials to govern Hong Kong; and he confirmed that they would not take any tax revenue from Hong Kong. These points have been touched on before, they were confirmed very clearly – a very welcome confirmation – this evening.

    I also raised the sensitive question of the choice of the chief executive designate with the prime minister and told him how sensitive and important that choice was if it was to carry the confidence of people across Hong Kong. He wasn’t able to tell me when the choice would be made. I turn to the Chinese speakers to express a contrary view if they wish to because they would have heard the original Chinese – certainly the flavouring of the interpretation of what the prime minister said seemed to me to be warmer and more understanding about the need for a sensitive choice of chief executive than anything we have heard before. I don’t know if one of the Chinese speakers want to confirm that.

    GRAHAM FRY:

    I think he went further in saying it must be somebody who the people of Hong Kong are hoping for and who is acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    So that was a helpful movement.

    He didn’t indicate any movement in the Chinese-position on LEGCO or on the bill of rights. I state that so that colleagues know what the position is.

    It was a very useful discussion, there was a very good atmosphere during the discussion. The assurances were very welcome; some of them we have had before but they were nevertheless welcome being presented in such clear-cut terms and it was a good opportunity to put face-to-face the concerns that exist in Hong Kong as the hand-over approaches and it was an extremely useful background discussion to me since I propose to go from here to Hong Kong when I will meet and address LEGCO in a couple of days.

    We touched, in addition to that, on a number of international matters. I don’t think you will be much interested in them by and large. We talked about the opportunities for future economic development. There is no doubt that the economic relationship between China and the United Kingdom, which was quite chilly a year or so ago, has warmed up pretty dramatically and I think that was extremely welcome.

    Those are the only points that I particularly wish to mention. There is nothing else of any significance that I would wish to say to you about it.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, how do you compare today’s talks with the last time you had discussions with Li Peng I think five years ago? I seem to recall it turned out to be rather [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Much warmer. A great deal of progress has been made. There was a huge amount of mutual suspicion then. Everything in the garden isn’t solved by any means, there are still areas of concern – the bill of rights and LEGCO I mentioned – but the overall atmosphere has changed and improved quite a lot and the economic relationship which at one stage looked as though it was being put in cold storage, has clearly improved. That started with Michael Heseltine’s visit last year, which was very, successful; it was quite a gamble that visit at the time but it turned out to be very successful and Li Peng indicated again tonight that he was looking forward to Michael going back with 250 businessmen in May.

    QUESTION:

    Did you suggest anything to Li Peng, Prime Minister, in terms of his need or China’s need to speak out publicly in order to restore some of the ebbing confidence in Hong Kong about the commercial future? Did you say that as well as private assurances there was a need to speak out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes. He was confident of that. It emerged quite gratuitously and what he had to say about the appointment of the chief executive. I think they are aware of that. China wants the hand-over to be a success as we do and I think some of the assurances that they have given – for example taking no tax revenue from Hong Kong, not putting in Chinese officials to take over the jobs of Hong Kong officials for example, being sensitive about the appointment of the chief executive – all of those were points that were directly relevant to restoring confidence in Hong Kong.

    I am not suggesting that there are no areas of disagreement, I am suggesting that the areas of agreement have been enlarging over the last few months.

    QUESTION:

    The head of the [indistinct] News Agency has said that Britain should not stir up trouble for Hong Kong’s smooth transition and I think the implication of that is that by taking the stand on LEGCO that the governor and the British Government have, this is stirring up trouble. Do you recognise that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    All I can say is I don’t know what news agencies say. That wasn’t the flavour I got from the prime minister.

    QUESTION:

    Would you say either on the record or on background whether you are at least relieved that the royal divorce is underway?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, neither on the record nor on background. It was an extremely good try. I will not comment on that until I have been properly briefed on what is happening; then I may say something but I don’t wish to without that.

    QUESTION:

    Can I also ask about the opening of talks today between John Hume, Gerry Adams and the IRA? They are talking about wanting to take the peace process forward, that was what they said afterwards. Is that hopeful?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have to wait and see. These days I am not quite so much impressed by mere words, I shall be more impressed by action. We have set out the way in which we intend to proceed. Sinn Fein have the opportunity to join in that process if they abandon their position on the ceasefire, if they begin to talk and meet the six principles, including the points on decommissioning but the choice is theirs.

    What is now clear to Sinn Fein is that there is a way in which they can come into the democratic process if they wish but if they choose to stay out of the democratic process the democratic process is not going to stop and wait for them so the choice is theirs. I am not going to comment on miscellaneous press conferences they may have, briefings they may give, I will comment on action when and if they deliver it.

    QUESTION:

    When you were talking to Li Peng, did you broach the issue of visas and also the question of the Vietnamese boat people? Were they discussed in any way?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were some other things I don’t wish to talk about this evening that we talked about, yes, but I am sure we will talk about those over the next few days.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Bangkok – 29 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Bangkok, held on Thursday 29th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say very briefly, I have just had an hour or so with Prime Minister Li Peng. We spent most of the time, not all of the time, but most of the time discussing Hong Kong matters. It was a very reassuring discussion, I was very pleased with the nature of it, very pleased with the tenor of it, and very pleased with the substance of it.

    The relationship undoubtedly has improved between the United Kingdom and China over the last year, economically and in terms of cooperation about the matters of such vital importance to Hong Kong.

    In our discussions this evening the Prime Minister reaffirmed some points that I think are of importance to Hong Kong. He reaffirmed that there would be no question of Chinese officials coming into Hong Kong, taking away senior jobs from Hong Kong officials. He reaffirmed the question that there was no question of tax revenues leaving Hong Kong.

    We also spent some time discussing the very sensitive question of the Chief Executive Designate, and although no decision upon that is imminent, I am in no doubt, following my discussion with the Prime Minister, that the sensitivity and importance of that matter to confidence in Hong Kong is fully understood by the Chinese authorities.

    We also discussed of course LEGCO and the Bill of Rights where the differences that exist between the British position and the Chinese position were reaffirmed. There is no change in those, that is a matter that will be a subject of continuing debate.

    I will take the opportunity of reporting more fully on my discussions with the Prime Minister when I am in Hong Kong in a day or so. But overall I thought the nature and tenor of discussion was more reassuring than any that I have had in the past and I am delighted we had the opportunity of meeting this evening.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Comments on Northern Ireland – 29 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep comments in Bangkok on Thursday 29th February 1996 on the subject of Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about how Sinn Fein could re-enter the peace process]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well the choice now is with Sinn Fein. We have set out, with the Irish government, the way that we believe matters should now proceed. There is an option for Sinn Fein. They can decide that they are going to opt into the democratic process, call a ceasefire, meet with the other parties, decide to meet the Mitchell principles and deal with decommissioning, or they can decide to opt out of the democratic process. That is a choice for Sinn Fein and the IRA, they must make that choice, I cannot make it for them and neither can anyone else. But if they decide to opt out of the democratic process, they cannot stop it, it will proceed without them, and that position is now I think entirely clear. They must make their choice.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the IRA Army Council’s comments]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    From what I have heard of it thus far it seems, frankly, rather like a sick joke. For the last 25 years the IRA have murdered people, they have bombed people, they have knee-capped people, they have dealt with people in a quite disgusting and disgraceful way. And for them to claim that anybody is responsible for what has happened in Northern Ireland over the last 25 years, except them, will be received with incredulity by anyone who knows anything about Northern Ireland and by the people who have lived in Northern Ireland. I think most people will be fed up to the back teeth with these comments of this sort that we get so repeatedly from the IRA. It is time for them to realise that for 25 years they have behaved in an appalling fashion. Nobody is going to give way to them, not now, not in the future, not ever. They either decide to behave properly and get into democracy or democracy will go on without them. The sort of nonsense we had from them this evening is a pathetic response to the hopes and dreams of the people of Northern Ireland. They owe it to the people who live in Northern Ireland to make a proper response and they owe it to them to do it speedily.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he now wanted to hear from Sinn Fein]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is no doubt about the words everyone wants to hear. They want to say unequivocally, without any doubt at all, that they have given up violence and they have given up violence for good; that they are seeking to ensure that Sinn Fein becomes a properly democratic party with the same democratic rights and obligations of the other political parties, and it will then join in the democratic process. People have waited a quarter of a century to hear that from the IRA. I think they have waited long enough. The IRA had better tell us that is what they are going to do or the rest of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom had better realise we have to proceed without them. The time for waiting is gone.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Bangkok at the Standard Chartered Bank – 29 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech in Bangkok at the Standard Chartered Bank, held on Thursday 29th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Malcolm, thank you very much indeed, and perhaps I can thank both Standard Chartered and the Ambassador for this reception this evening, and I am delighted to be back here.

    Malcolm was kind enough to refer to some of my past with Standard Chartered, and he was almost correct about it. They in fact called for volunteers to go to Nigeria. I think they were looking for those who were expendable. The situation in Nigeria at the time was quite volatile, I was deemed at the time entirely expendable, having been with Standard Chartered for a very short time, and I volunteered to go there. And although it ended after a rather miserable motor accident, I don’t regret, if Malcolm will forgive me for saying so, any of the time I spent with Standard Chartered and I am delighted to be here as their guest this evening. I have retained an affection for a bank I worked for for a very long time and I am delighted to see that they are doing so well in this part of the country.

    Let me just say a few words about one or two other things.

    Perhaps firstly starting most obviously with the conference that I and the Heads of other Western European governments and South East Asian governments will be attending over the next couple of days. Why have it, and why here? They are both I think questions worth asking because the answers are important. What actually strikes me most about the conference is that we have never done it before. We have had an axis between South East Asia and America, between the United Kingdom and the United States, between some Western European countries and some countries in South East Asia, certainly the United Kingdom has had a very great interest in many areas in South East Asia, but not Europe as a whole. And yet Western Europe, South East Asia and the United States are the great engines collectively of the world economy and I think it is long overdue that we should actually meet together to discuss not just economic matters, but security and other matters, in this format. And I can think of no better place to start than here in Bangkok. The next meeting will be in London, so I think the choice both in Western Europe and in South East Asia has been very wisely made by those people who chose those two centres.

    What will we be looking at? It is a simplistic truism to refer to the extent to which the world market shrinks. But it does make a material difference to what actually happens in the world business environment. Many people have looked at Thailand and looked at their truly astonishing growth over the last few years and I see that, and I admire that, very much.

    But if I may say so, from a British perspective, the growth in Thailand itself seems to me to be only part of the story that we should be examining. Because although the growth in Thailand is immensely impressive over recent years, the fact is also that Thailand is a superb centre for the whole of South East Asia. It presents an opportunity for Western Europe, and indeed beyond Western Europe, to develop a relationship with the whole of South East Asia through the entrepot opportunities of investment and trade with Thailand. And I think it is for that reason that I think it is particularly appropriate that this first conference should actually be here.

    I would like, if I may, just for a moment or two, to say something about the United Kingdom’s relationship with Thailand and perhaps also what is happening in the United Kingdom economy at the moment. We have had a long and historical relationship with Thailand, a lot of historical investment, some recent investment, quite significant trade and investment, we are certainly the largest European investor in Thailand. But I push that largely to one side, because what actually strikes me is not that we are the largest European investor in Thailand, but that the opportunity for investment from Europe into Thailand, and from Thailand into Europe, has barely scratched the surface yet of what is possible. That is true both of two-way investment, it is true also of trade both in manufacturing goods, and also I think in invisibles as well, there is of course a very large relationship in oil, as one would expect.

    But there are many other areas where that relationship can and should grow. And I would hope we are going to see in the next few years a promotion of those opportunities both in Western Europe and in Thailand. Because there is – I put this with a small ‘c’ – a conservatism in Western Europe sometimes about investment that I think we should push to one side. The speed of change is staggering these days. The first people to see what an opportunity is and begin to grasp it are the people who will take maximum advantage of that opportunity. And the opportunity that exists at the moment for Thailand with Western Europe, and for Western Europe with Thailand and with South East Asia, seems to me to be very important.

    Let me say just a word or two about the United Kingdom economy. In the early 1990s the recession hit Western Europe very hard, harder than it hit this part of the world that shrugged it off with its astonishing growth rates. But it hit Western Europe, the United States, Japan, very hard indeed. We emerged in the United Kingdom from that recession some time ago. What is different is the way in which we emerged from that recession. Time after time in the 50 or so years since the Second World War we have had growth and decline patterns in a sort of roller coaster across Western Europe, and certainly in the United Kingdom. What we were determined about on this occasion was that when we went into the recession we would do nothing during the recession that would inhibit growth without inflation after the recession. And although there were a series of very difficult political decisions to take, that was the decision that we took at the time.

    And we have now emerged out of recession, I think probably for the first time since the Second World War, without the endemic problems that lead to future economic downturns in the future. The one of most importance of course is the tendency to inflation across Western Europe. We have emerged in the United Kingdom with the inflationary psychology, perhaps for the first time for 40 -50 years, securely under lock and key. Inflation in the UK has been lower for longer than we can remember for a very long time and it is still on a downward trend. It is below 3 percent now, we expect it to be 2.5 percent, maybe below, by the beginning of next year. And despite that, despite that ball and chain on that inflationary problem that has so often been endemic in the United Kingdom, we have actually also got quite a reasonable decline in the levels of unemployment. Our unemployment in the United Kingdom is too high, it is just under 8 percent, but it has been falling every month for the last two and a half years and it is far lower than unemployment in any of our comparative Western European countries, like Germany at over 10 percent, France at over 13 percent, Spain and Italy a good deal higher.

    And it is that combination of growth towards the top of the European growth league, puny by comparison with your astonishing growth rates here in South East Asia, but then everybody’s growth rate is puny compared to yours, but growth rates up at the top end of the European league, inflation down at the bottom end, unemployment down at the bottom end and competitiveness, as those of you who deal with the United Kingdom will know, a good deal sharper and better than most people can remember it.

    Somebody said to me a few moments ago, as we met: “I do a lot of business with the United Kingdom”, he said, “they are very tough people to do business with. And I said: Good, I am glad we are tough people to do business with. You are tough people to do business with as well, but we are doing more business and it is good business. And if you are competitive, and we are competitive, the one certain thing is that that volume of business is going to grow both in the short term and the long term, and that is what we wish to see.

    Before I came to this reception this evening, I had a meeting with a number of the most senior businessmen in Thailand. And we looked at the opportunities that exist for greater mutual investment and trade. And there is no doubt that we have but barely scratched the surface of what is actually possible thus far and we need to go a good deal further. Thailand will make its own judgements about how to do it, and we in Britain will make ours. And we are thinking very long term, not in terms of 2 or 3 years but very long term indeed.

    I will give you an illustration of that. I, like most of the people of my age around this room, and I think there are one or two, if it is not ungallant to say so, we see the huge change, the overwhelming change of information technology, change at a speed and a kind beyond the imagination of anything we had at school or in our early 20s. That is the world that is developing. It is not going to go away, there is no point in pretending that it is going to go away. Many of those changes are going to be very beneficial. We propose to plan for the very long term with those changes. There has been a huge development of medium and high-tech industries right the way across the United Kingdom. We are looking now at developing information technology training, and information technology possibilities in our schools, primary and secondary, in a way that we have never seen before. I want to see all our schools, all our children, with computers that they understand on their desks, I want to see them grasping what information technology is going to do for their future, their country and the international trading market in the years that come ahead. And we are looking at the moment at some of the biggest prospects that my country has ever seen, of developing private finance in partnership to bring those information technology prospects and training right to our youngest people in, school, right the way through the school, so that you as employers, and by then I am sure even more of you will have invested in the United Kingdom, will find that you have a workforce trained and skilled in the sort of information that you will need that will be the common currency of world trade in the years that lie immediately ahead.

    So we meet at a time of almost unparalleled change and certainly of unparalleled opportunity if it is taken. Someone is going to take the opportunities that exist. Our job, mine in the United Kingdom, yours in Thailand, is to make sure that amongst those people who take those opportunities are our two countries. I think we can do that. I think to a greater extent than we have seen in the past we can actually do that together.

    I was delighted, as an old Standard Chartered man, that Malcolm Williamson was here recently with a large trading group. I am delighted we have got an Anglo/Thai business community beginning to develop. I am delighted that the business community in the UK is looking increasingly to Thailand, and from what I have seen already, that the reverse is true. Those opportunities exist. I can do something to help with those opportunities, but you can do more, those of you from the UK who are here, those of you who are Thai but with interests in the UK. I would simply say to you as an external observer of the scheme, the opportunity is there, it is for you to take it. And from what I have seen and know of the Thai government, and from what I know of the British government, we will do what we can to help in that development.

    So thank you for being here this evening, thank you for the joint interest you have in trade between our two countries. And thank you to the Ambassador, who is hiding somewhere, just here, a shy, retiring man, not often noticed, only about 6ft 4in. And thank you also to Standard Chartered for their hospitality.

    I am delighted to be here for this conference. I have no doubt about its importance, no doubt that this conference isn’t a one-off event just held in Thailand, but the start of a recognition of what can be achieved between Thailand and South East Asia as a whole, and Britain and Western Europe as a whole. It is a good start, I am sure it will go further, and thank you for being here.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 29 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Export Controls

    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to commission an independent review on the power to impose controls on exports from the United Kingdom.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February, Official Report, columns 589-604.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 26 February, indicating the purpose of each meeting.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is carrying out official engagements in the far east.

     

    Downing Street Meetings

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister (1) on how many occasions during the past 12 months he has had meetings at 10 Downing Street with (a) Sir Gerrard Neale and (b) Lord Younger;

    (2) what facilities have been extended to Sir Gerrard Neale to have access to 10 Downing Street in the past 12 months; and what access he has had to office and telephone facilities.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    As far as my right hon. Friend is aware, none.

     

    British Aerospace

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions British Aerospace was represented (a) directly and (b) indirectly in groups led by (i) him and (ii) other Ministers to India in each of the last five years; if he will give the dates of such visits; and if he will make a statement.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    Representatives from British Aerospace have accompanied British Ministers to India on two occasions during the last five years in connection with our trade promotion programme for India.

    Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had relating to the sale by British Aerospace to India of Hawk 100 aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    The Indian air force has a requirement for a number of advanced jet trainer aircraft. British Aerospace has offered a variant of the Hawk aircraft to meet that requirement. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has commended the Hawk to the Indian Prime Minister on more than one occasion.

     

    Lord-Lieutenants

    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Prime Minister which lord-lieutenants will be affected by the changes in local government organisation that come into operation on 1 April.

    The Prime Minister: On 1 April 1996 the following arrangements will come into effect.

    In the former county of Avon Mr. Jay Tidmarsh will become the new Lord-Lieutenant of the new county of Bristol.

    Sir John Wills, Lord-Lieutenant of Somerset, will cover the unitary authorities of Bath and North East Somerset and North Somerset as part of the new ceremonial county of Somerset.

    Mr. Henry Elwes, Lord-Lieutenant of Gloucestershire, will cover the unitary authority of South Gloucestershire as part of the new ceremonial county of Gloucestershire.

    In the former County of Cleveland The Lord Gisborough, at present Lord-Lieutenant of Cleveland, will become Lieutenant of North Yorkshire, when the unitary authorities of Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton on Tees (south of the River Tees), previously in Cleveland, become part of the new ceremonial county of North Yorkshire.

    Sir Marcus Worsley will continue as Lord-Lieutenant of the whole of the county of North Yorkshire, including the new unitary authority of York.

    Mr. David Grant, as Lord-Lieutenant of Durham, will cover the unitary authorities of Hartlepool and Stockton on Tees (north of the River Tees) within the new ceremonial county of Durham.

    In the former county of Humberside Mr. Richard Marriott will become the Lord-Lieutenant of the new county of the East Riding of Yorkshire, covering the unitary authorities of Kingston upon Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire.

    Mrs. Bridget Cracroft-Eley, as Lord-Lieutenant of Lincolnshire, will cover the unitary authorities of North and North East Lincolnshire, as part of the new ceremonial county of Lincolnshire.

     

    Information Technology Developments

    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Prime Minister how he intends to ensure that the United Kingdom derives maximum benefit from opportunities in developments in multi-media and information technology; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The Government see the development of multi-media and information technology as an exciting area of opportunity for the United Kingdom in which much is already being achieved. These technological innovations are having an important impact on all aspects of our way of life. In the future there will be further opportunities for business to develop new products, services and ways of working; for individuals to adapt their work patterns; for consumers to improve their quality of life with new electronic products and services; and for the providers of services such as health care, education and training to strengthen their quality and delivery.

    The Government have been committed to the comprehensive development of these technologies since the early 1980s. By freeing up the market for our telecommunications and broadcasting industries through privatisation and deregulation and promoting the use of computers in schools we have made sure that the UK is in the vanguard of technological change. We are now undertaking a further range of initiatives, most recently through the information society initiative launched last month.

    A strong lead is rightly being given by the private sector’s enterprise and initiative. That will continue to be supported by a focused and complementary partnership with Government. In order to reinforce that focus and driving force across Government, I have asked my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister to convene a ministerial group with the following terms of reference:

    “To identify and take forward significant cross-departmental initiatives to ensure that developments in information technology are exploited to the full in the national interest”.

    In addition to the chairman, members of the group will be as follows:

    President of the Board of Trade

    Chief Secretary, Treasury

    Secretary of State for National Heritage

    Secretary of State for Education and Employment

    Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

    Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis)

    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Taylor).

    Other Ministers will be invited to attend for items on which they have a departmental interest. My efficiency adviser and the chief scientific adviser will also attend.

    The work of the group will build on the information society initiative and the separate activities of the central information technology unit recently set up in the Office of Public Service to plan the Government’s own use of technology. By these means the Government will ensure that there is strengthened stimulus and co-ordination within and beyond Government to enable the UK to derive maximum benefit from the new technology.

  • PMQT – 29 February 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th February 1996. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is carrying out official engagements in the far east.

    Mr. Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Dover and Deal we have a selective system of education that offers choice and diversity and requires no parent to send his child 15 miles to school? Is he aware that we have grant-maintained grammar schools, high schools, a grant-maintained comprehensive school and we now have a Labour-run county council that wants to try to change what the Conservative county council set up? Is he further aware that the Labour party’s policies in Kent reek of old Labour hypocrisy? Is the Labour party trying to change the policy or the guidelines, or is it just being hypocritical?

    Madam Speaker: Order. I have cautioned the hon. Gentleman before. Ministers at the Dispatch Box are not responsible for the policy of any other political party. They are responsible for Government policy and they should be asked matters relating to that policy and for which they are accountable. I have no doubt that there is something in the hon. Gentleman’s earlier comments to which the Deputy Prime Minister can reply, but I am sure he will relate his comments to Government policy.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that I can stretch my answer to embrace your suggestions, Madam Speaker. The fact is that my hon. Friend has described the excellent range of choice and policies that Conservative education policy represents. He will be well aware of the criticisms of the alternative structure of comprehensive education that we have heard from the Labour spokesman on education, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who said:

    “In spite of 30 years of comprehensive education, the pattern of excellence at the top and chronic under-performance at the bottom persists”.

    That is the most comprehensive criticism of Labour education policy that I have ever heard, even from a Labour spokesman.

    Mr. Prescott: Why did the Prime Minister refuse to answer parliamentary questions about the names of the people he will be meeting on his publicly funded visit to Hong Kong?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have not the slightest doubt that my right hon. Friend’s programme will remain flexible during the course of his visit. Any Labour Member who has ever represented his country abroad will know the great importance of being able to respond to suggestions of meetings in the margins of international councils. It is ludicrous to think that one can plan all those things with so many world leaders in one circumstance at a time. It shows that the Opposition are so devoid of reality that they are unfit to govern.

    Mr. Prescott: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that there is a great deal of public concern because, during the Prime Minister’s last visit to Hong Kong, he met a number of wealthy Hong Kong business men who then gave millions of pounds to Tory party funds, none of which was publicly declared? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that, on this occasion, no such meetings will take place?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman would ever take the trouble to find out about the world outside Britain, he would know that there are a number of wealthy Chinese business men in Hong Kong, because it is one of the most successful capitalist economies in the world.

    Mr. Prescott: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to be open and honest about Tory party funding? Have we not returned to the fundamental question about the Tory party–what does it have to hide?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman would be a great deal better off telling the country about the clandestine meetings that are taking place with the trade unions to do the deals that will enable them to support the Labour party, in the hope that it will get power.

    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that top British companies succeed because they are no longer hamstrung by trade union domination, and that that has resulted in the lowest strike level for more than 100 years? Will he give the House a commitment that the Conservative Government will not engage in any sleazy backroom deals with trade unions to do away with the trade union legislation that has enabled Britain to be the enterprise economy of Europe?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend an unequivocal assurance that we will do no sleazy backroom deals with anyone, whether in the trade unions, the capitalist system or anywhere else.

     

    Q2. Mr. Tyler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Tyler: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall who was the last Conservative Minister to take full accountability for the actions of his Department and to resign on principle? Does he think that certain Ministers in the present Government should follow that example?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will remember that he lost the vote on Monday. I recall that my noble Friend Lord Carrington resigned in circumstances with which the hon. Gentleman will be as familiar as I am, but the fact of the matter is that my right hon. Friends explained our views on the Scott report. The House listened to the arguments and found in favour of the Government.

    Sir Patrick Cormack: As my right hon. Friend quite clearly and rightly believes in retaining the rank of Prime Minister, will he please explain to the House why we are to abolish the rank of field marshal?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend misunderstood the recent announcement. As I understand it, the rank of field marshal will now be awarded only to generals commanding an army in the field in times of war.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gapes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Gapes: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall that, before he was appointed to his elevated position last July, the Labour party was leading the Conservatives by 27 per cent. in the opinion polls? Has he seen the MORI poll in The Times today, showing that Labour’s lead over the Conservatives is now 31 per cent? In view of that, does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that he should continue in his responsibility for the presentation of Government policy?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The answer–[Interruption.] I thought that the House might be interested in the answer to the question, which is best summarised in one word: yes.

     

    Q4. Sir Alan Haselhurst: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to examine the workings of the Land Compensation Act 1973? Is he aware that claimants against Stansted airport have to wait between four and five years for settlement, and that that is causing a great deal of anguish, if not hardship, in many cases; whereas the airport operator can still sustain claims up to 1988 and has absolutely no idea of its total liability? Is that not a recipe for maximum discontent?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sympathetic to the point that my hon. Friend has made, and I know the efforts to which he has gone to make representations on this issue. However, the matter is not under ministerial control; it is a matter of quasi-judicial responsibilities and the processes must unfold in the way that he has described.

    Mr. Rooker: Will the Deputy Prime Minister address the issue of the standards of conduct in public life? Are the Government planning to do anything to close the loophole–about which we are criticised–whereby hon. Members use the freedom of aircraft tickets to travel between constituencies to gain private air miles for their families? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should listen to questions, and to the answers.

    Mr. Rooker: Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain the difference in that action and the actions of a publicly funded Prime Minister travelling to the other side of the world to fill the coffers of his party’s political funds?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raised a serious issue in the first part of his question, and I shall deal with it seriously. Guidance to Ministers is quite clear: they are not allowed to use air miles incurred in public services for private purposes.

     

    Q5. Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Gill: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government would be prepared to walk away from the conference table at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference if they cannot get a deal that is acceptable to the majority of British voters?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Government will shortly publish a White Paper on their approach to the intergovernmental conference. The British Government will represent the interests of this country at the conference, and it is their view that they will do that more effectively if they participate in the dialogue.

     

    Q6. Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Flynn: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the heartbreaking pollution from the Sea Empress is the worst environmental catastrophe ever to hit the United Kingdom? Is he aware that an internal inquiry by civil servants of the conduct of other civil servants and their Minister is not a satisfactory inquiry? Will he give the undertakings that a full inquiry will take place, preferably under Lord Donaldson, and that it will be public and entirely independent?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport told the House last week, the marine accident investigation branch will carry out a thorough and independent inquiry into the cause of the incident and the conduct of the salvage operation.

    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to recall that, when he was the Secretary of State for the Environment, he pursued the excellent policy of defending the metropolitan green belt? Does he agree with me that the metropolitan green belt is the greatest bulwark against urban sprawl? Will Her Majesty’s Government continue to make that policy the centrepoint of their environment policy?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is as determined as any former Secretary of State in his advocacy and maintenance of Government policy on the green belt. He will act in compliance with planning policy guidance and with the law. He must consider any matters that are put before him, but no one should doubt his commitment to the green belt.

     

    Q7. Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the enthusiasm of the Deputy Prime Minister and of the Prime Minister for efficiency in Government Departments–which was shown clearly by their support for market testing–is it not now appropriate for the British people to market test the Government?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: They would find that they are looking forward to an economy that is as strong as any in contemporary history. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained at the time of the Budget statement, they are looking forward to an increase in average incomes of £9 a week. Since then, there have been two reductions in interest rates. We have the lowest inflation rate for many years, falling unemployment and a competitive currency. It is obvious that the Government have presided over extremely exciting economic prospects.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 February 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if information communicated by the United Nations special commission to the International Atomic Energy Agency by Her Majesty’s Government on British companies which supplied materials relevant to Iraqi programmes to acquire weapons of mass destruction, was communicated to the Scott inquiry in its entirety.

    The Prime Minister [holding answers 26 February 1996]: Yes, insofar as it related to the period covered by the inquiry’s terms of reference.

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he received from Ministers at the time he established the Scott inquiry in respect of (a) the remit and (b) the format of the inquiry.

    The Prime Minister: My discussions with Ministers are private.

    Mr. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Iraq note referred to on page 439 of the Scott report;

    (2) if he will now place in the Library a copy of the information note prepared by his private secretary on 3 December 1990.

    The Prime Minister: This document was submitted as evidence to Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry. I understand that Sir Richard Scott proposes to publish as soon as possible any documents which he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister what response he plans to make to the representations made by the secretary of the Scott inquiry concerning the nature of statements by various Ministers following the press conference held by Sir Richard Scott on 15 February.

    The Prime Minister: A reply has been sent to the secretary of the inquiry’s letter on this matter. As the inquiry’s letter has been widely quoted and reproduced in the media, this reply was made public.

    The inquiry wrote again subsequently making it clear that Sir Richard’s view applied to any summary of his report, whether by Government, Opposition or the media.

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place copies of ministerial and departmental responses to the first draft of Sir Richard Scott’s report of the inquiry into the sale of arms to Iraq in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 27 February 1996]: Departments’ closing statements to the Scott inquiry have already been published in part B of volume V of the Scott inquiry report. I understand that Sir Richard Scott proposes to publish as soon as possible documents that he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. However, paragraph B3.11 of the report records that, in the interests of fairness, Sir Richard does not propose to publish comments submitted by witnesses on the draft report.

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the people who received copies of the Scott report in advance of the official publication date; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 February 1996]: The following Ministers received advance copies of Sir Richard Scott’s report: the Prime Minister; the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary; the President of the Board of Trade; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; the Secretary of State for Defence and the Attorney-General.

    In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the Paymaster General and the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, had access to the report prior to publication, in accordance with the terms laid down by the Scott inquiry.

    A small number of civil servants in the main Departments concerned also received advance copies.

     

    Iraq (Defence-related Exports)

    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister when he first learned of the 1988 amendments to the 1985 Howe guidelines into defence-related exports to Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 27 February 1996]: The first time I learned that a change in the guidelines had been considered in 1988 was in a minute from my private secretary dated 13 November 1992.

     

    Mr. Omar al Hassan

    Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions in 1994 he met Mr. Omar al Hassan; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, once, at a speaking engagement.

     

    Millennium Exhibition

    Mr. Booth: To ask the Prime Minister what part he envisages that Government will play in relation to the millennium exhibition; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The Government very much welcome the announcement by the Millennium Commission of its decision to stage a national millennium exhibition in Greenwich. This visionary and exciting scheme will enable the whole nation to mark this significant event in a wholly appropriate way. It should also encourage large numbers of overseas visitors to join in our national celebrations during the millennium year.

    Arrangements for the millennium exhibition are the responsibility of the independent Millennium Commission. The exhibition will be funded by the Commission from its share of national lottery proceeds and from private sector contributions. Given its scale, the event will, raise many issues to which the Government have to respond.

    In order to ensure that the Government’s participation in this significant national event is well planned and co-ordinated, I have asked the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister to convene a ministerial group with the following terms of reference:

    “to oversee the Government’s role in relation to the Millennium Festival and to take forward any necessary planning of the Government’s involvement in this event.”

    In addition to the chairman, members of the group will be as follows:

    Chancellor of the Exchequer

    Secretary of State for the Home Department

    Secretary of State for the Environment

    Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

    Secretary of State for National Heritage

    Lord Privy Seal

    Secretary of State for Transport

    Secretary of State for Scotland

    Secretary of State for Wales

    Other Ministers will be invited to attend for items in which they have a departmental interest.

    The Government will do all they can to assist the Millennium Commission to ensure that the millennium festival is an outstanding successful national event.

     

    Hong Kong

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet Mr. C. H. Tung, Mr. Rong Yiren, Mr. David Choy, Mr. Tsui Tsin-tong, Mr. George Cardona and Mr. Algy Cluff during his forthcoming visit to Hong Kong.

    The Prime Minister: I hope to meet a broad range of business men, politicians and other opinion formers.