The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1997

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Calcutta – 9 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Calcutta, held on Thursday 9th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, some good news, they have found the yachtsman, Tom Bullimore, alive in his hull.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I heard that just a few moments ago. I think that is an absolutely extraordinary story and quite wonderful news. I am absolutely delighted about it.

    QUESTION:

    And quite a rescue operation by the Australians?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe we owe a lot of thanks to the people who did it. I think very few people expected this happy outcome but I am absolutely delighted to hear about it.

    QUESTION:

    And what are your impressions of India so far?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have had a fascination with India for as long as I can remember. I greatly enjoyed my last visit three or four years ago and I am delighted to be back.

    QUESTION:

    Do you see any political risk in being here at a time like this when an election is approaching?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well no I don’t. I was invited to come by the CII [Confederation of Indian Industry] some time ago and I am here because there is a tremendous growth of trade between the United Kingdom and India. With the former Prime Minister, Narasimha Rao, I set up the British-Indian Association to try and foster extra trade. Since then trade and investment has increased by about 80 percent in the last four years and that is very important to India and it is very important to the United Kingdom. And I have brought with me on this occasion as high a powered group of senior British businessmen as I think have ever left the United Kingdom together, and I think that is going to generate a fair amount of increased trade and investment and that is very much in the interest of the United Kingdom and of India.

  • Mr Major’s Briefing en route to Calcutta – 8 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing en route to Calcutta, on Wednesday 8th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t want to take your time for more than a second. Just really to say that I hope you will enjoy the trip, you know where we are going, I think Jonathan has taken you in detail through the agenda, so I won’t traipse through all that again.

    The genesis of this visit was a meeting I had with the Confederation of Indian Industry at Downing Street last summer, June/July, I forget precisely when it was, it was the day that Ganguly was taking a very large 100 off England at Lords, I can tell you that, but I can’t remember the exact date. And they invited me to come and address their main event of the year, which will be their seminar on Thursday afternoon, when I hope to deliver a fairly substantial speech, largely about international trade, markets and business-related matters.

    When they invited me to come, and I accepted, it seemed a suitable opportunity to bring with us a business delegation and I think you have seen the size and composition of the business delegation.

    It isn’t the biggest ever to leave the United Kingdom, but it is probably as high powered as any that has ever left the United Kingdom, I think Ian Lang and Michael Heseltine have both taken larger numbers of businessmen but I don’t think there has been a better quality in terms of seniority of British businessmen travelling abroad on a single trip in the past.

    This isn’t a trip to look for short term contracts. There will be quite a few contracts signed when we first get there, but they are not the product particularly of this visit, they are the product of a great deal of work over the last few months. The businessmen who are here are largely here looking for long term contracts. The Indians are extremely good to do business with, but contracts don’t get signed and sealed in a day, so they will be here as part of a long term relationship with India and I hope we will be able to open a few doors for them that otherwise might have remained closed. Certainly we are discussing with some of the businessmen the sort of things that we can do that might be helpful for them.

    While we are here also we will take an opportunity of looking at some of the aid projects. We want to look at some of the drug liaison effort that is going on, that is one of the principal reasons for going to the Khyber Pass, apart from its historical significance, and a chance for seeing the Khyber Rifles. So hope it will be both a worthwhile and an interesting trip.

    We are going on also to Bangladesh, I have never visited Bangladesh before, and on to Pakistan. In each of the three countries the purpose of the visit is predominantly trade, perhaps a little less so in Bangladesh, but certainly a trade interest in Bangladesh as well.

    I don’t think there is really much more I wish to say at the outset. If you have any questions on business-related matters, or the visit, I will happily try and answer them, or pass them on to Ian if they fall into his bailiwick.

    What I would just suggest in conclusion, if it appeals to any of you. I suggest when we have finished this brief discussion that we might go a little back in the plane and have a glass of champagne, or two, and we will try and persuade the businessmen to come and join us and you will be able to get a feel perhaps from them if you wish to of the advantages that they see of the visit.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    There were a couple of pieces in the paper today about how tense the situation is in Pakistan. Is it your plan to see Benazir Bhutto and obviously people are going to ask would you be willing to meet Imran Khan if he was available?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there are any plans for me to meet Imran Khan, though I have met him before in the past of course. I know Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto quite well, we have met many times in the past, and I think it is highly likely I will see both of them. I should add that I don’t intend to get involved in internal Pakistani domestic politics, but I have known both of them of old, it would be extremely odd if I didn’t meet them.

    QUESTION:

    A few question marks have been raised about the fact that you should be going abroad when there is so much happening at home and the election campaign is under way. Do you think that it is a bit odd to leave things without you in charge while so much is going on?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think helping our trade effort abroad is quite important as well. The election is important when it comes in due course but the normal activities of government have to go on in the interim. And here we have the 50th anniversary of Independence in India, I think that is a pretty significant event in India and it is a pretty significant event as far as the United Kingdom are concerned too, so I certainly wish to mark the beginning of that with a visit, and of course the trading interest which continues.

    So I think it is quite right. Government and the normal activities of government have to proceed. The election is important, it will come in due course, but it doesn’t dominate or eliminate all other activities in government, I think it is quite right to come.

  • Mr Major’s Briefing en route to Calcutta – 8 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing en route to Calcutta, on Wednesday 8th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t want to take your time for more than a second. Just really to say that I hope you will enjoy the trip, you know where we are going, I think Jonathan has taken you in detail through the agenda, so I won’t traipse through all that again.

    The genesis of this visit was a meeting I had with the Confederation of Indian Industry at Downing Street last summer, June/July, I forget precisely when it was, it was the day that Ganguly was taking a very large 100 off England at Lords, I can tell you that, but I can’t remember the exact date. And they invited me to come and address their main event of the year, which will be their seminar on Thursday afternoon, when I hope to deliver a fairly substantial speech, largely about international trade, markets and business-related matters.

    When they invited me to come, and I accepted, it seemed a suitable opportunity to bring with us a business delegation and I think you have seen the size and composition of the business delegation.

    It isn’t the biggest ever to leave the United Kingdom, but it is probably as high powered as any that has ever left the United Kingdom, I think Ian Lang and Michael Heseltine have both taken larger numbers of businessmen but I don’t think there has been a better quality in terms of seniority of British businessmen travelling abroad on a single trip in the past.

    This isn’t a trip to look for short term contracts. There will be quite a few contracts signed when we first get there, but they are not the product particularly of this visit, they are the product of a great deal of work over the last few months. The businessmen who are here are largely here looking for long term contracts. The Indians are extremely good to do business with, but contracts don’t get signed and sealed in a day, so they will be here as part of a long term relationship with India and I hope we will be able to open a few doors for them that otherwise might have remained closed. Certainly we are discussing with some of the businessmen the sort of things that we can do that might be helpful for them.

    While we are here also we will take an opportunity of looking at some of the aid projects. We want to look at some of the drug liaison effort that is going on, that is one of the principal reasons for going to the Khyber Pass, apart from its historical significance, and a chance for seeing the Khyber Rifles. So hope it will be both a worthwhile and an interesting trip.

    We are going on also to Bangladesh, I have never visited Bangladesh before, and on to Pakistan. In each of the three countries the purpose of the visit is predominantly trade, perhaps a little less so in Bangladesh, but certainly a trade interest in Bangladesh as well.

    I don’t think there is really much more I wish to say at the outset. If you have any questions on business-related matters, or the visit, I will happily try and answer them, or pass them on to Ian if they fall into his bailiwick.

    What I would just suggest in conclusion, if it appeals to any of you. I suggest when we have finished this brief discussion that we might go a little back in the plane and have a glass of champagne, or two, and we will try and persuade the businessmen to come and join us and you will be able to get a feel perhaps from them if you wish to of the advantages that they see of the visit.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    There were a couple of pieces in the paper today about how tense the situation is in Pakistan. Is it your plan to see Benazir Bhutto and obviously people are going to ask would you be willing to meet Imran Khan if he was available?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think there are any plans for me to meet Imran Khan, though I have met him before in the past of course. I know Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto quite well, we have met many times in the past, and I think it is highly likely I will see both of them. I should add that I don’t intend to get involved in internal Pakistani domestic politics, but I have known both of them of old, it would be extremely odd if I didn’t meet them.

    QUESTION:

    A few question marks have been raised about the fact that you should be going abroad when there is so much happening at home and the election campaign is under way. Do you think that it is a bit odd to leave things without you in charge while so much is going on?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think helping our trade effort abroad is quite important as well. The election is important when it comes in due course but the normal activities of government have to go on in the interim. And here we have the 50th anniversary of Independence in India, I think that is a pretty significant event in India and it is a pretty significant event as far as the United Kingdom are concerned too, so I certainly wish to mark the beginning of that with a visit, and of course the trading interest which continues.

    So I think it is quite right. Government and the normal activities of government have to proceed. The election is important, it will come in due course, but it doesn’t dominate or eliminate all other activities in government, I think it is quite right to come.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 7 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made in an interview held in London on Tuesday 7th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the Conservatives had moved away from being bold reformers to being defensive].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The premise of your question is entirely wrong. That is not the basis of our appeal to the country. What we are saying to the country is that as a result of a whole series of difficult decisions that have been taken, after a very hard time both frankly for the government and for industry and commerce, we have now produced a position where the British economy has the most sparkling prospects for a very long time. What we are saying to the country is it has been very difficult to get here, it won’t be easy to keep it, we will have to follow the same policies in future if we wish this prosperity to blossom. And the appeal that we will make to the country is not as your describe it, the appeal that we will make to the country is the economy is right, that means the prospects before us are very bright indeed, don’t throw those prospects away, this is how we propose to develop them in the future. That is the substance of what we will be saying.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked where the new thinking was].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a whole range of new thinking. Let me deal with it. Though I have to say, before I delve into new thinking, new thinking is very fashionable for political commentators, but stability is what most people in the country would like to see, stability so they can get on with their own lives in security and stability and meet their own ambitions.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that was because they had had their stability hit hard].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no, no, people have always wanted stability. People’s living standards have risen; educational prospects have risen, 1 in 3 of our young people going to university whereas there were 1 in 8; there are a million more people being treated on the National Health Service. You mustn’t be so negative James, there is a great deal happening that is extremely good and I intend to see that that continues. As far as new thinking is concerned, there is still a good way to go on the education reforms, we are still continuing to improve the Health Service, both those things are fundamental to people.

    We are keen to ensure that the state doesn’t blanket out decisions that the family themselves should make. I am not opposed, as you seem to imply for example, to constitutional changes, I have made constitutional changes in the last five years, quite a lot of them, some in Scotland, some in Ireland, some in Wales, some in Parliament, and we have more planned for the future than we have set out. What I am opposed to is the sort of reckless all-purpose constitutional change without thought that our opponents favour.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 7 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made in an interview held in London on Tuesday 7th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the Conservatives had moved away from being bold reformers to being defensive].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The premise of your question is entirely wrong. That is not the basis of our appeal to the country. What we are saying to the country is that as a result of a whole series of difficult decisions that have been taken, after a very hard time both frankly for the government and for industry and commerce, we have now produced a position where the British economy has the most sparkling prospects for a very long time. What we are saying to the country is it has been very difficult to get here, it won’t be easy to keep it, we will have to follow the same policies in future if we wish this prosperity to blossom. And the appeal that we will make to the country is not as your describe it, the appeal that we will make to the country is the economy is right, that means the prospects before us are very bright indeed, don’t throw those prospects away, this is how we propose to develop them in the future. That is the substance of what we will be saying.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked where the new thinking was].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a whole range of new thinking. Let me deal with it. Though I have to say, before I delve into new thinking, new thinking is very fashionable for political commentators, but stability is what most people in the country would like to see, stability so they can get on with their own lives in security and stability and meet their own ambitions.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if that was because they had had their stability hit hard].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, no, no, people have always wanted stability. People’s living standards have risen; educational prospects have risen, 1 in 3 of our young people going to university whereas there were 1 in 8; there are a million more people being treated on the National Health Service. You mustn’t be so negative James, there is a great deal happening that is extremely good and I intend to see that that continues. As far as new thinking is concerned, there is still a good way to go on the education reforms, we are still continuing to improve the Health Service, both those things are fundamental to people.

    We are keen to ensure that the state doesn’t blanket out decisions that the family themselves should make. I am not opposed, as you seem to imply for example, to constitutional changes, I have made constitutional changes in the last five years, quite a lot of them, some in Scotland, some in Ireland, some in Wales, some in Parliament, and we have more planned for the future than we have set out. What I am opposed to is the sort of reckless all-purpose constitutional change without thought that our opponents favour.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 5 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made in an interview on 5th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the talks between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think there are several things to be said about it. I don’t think there’s any secret that they’ve been talking. The substantive part of what they’ve been agreeing of course has been secret. I’m rather surprised they’ve kept the whole thing quite as secret as they have, it’s clearly leaked in the Sunday Times and they then briefed other papers. But the substantive issue of what they’re discussing I think is very important.

    Now what is shown this morning of their agreement I suspect is just the hors d’oeuvre of what they’re really discussing. The key point of course, that they will turn to, is the Scottish Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and then of course changing the voting system in the United Kingdom. Those will be the points of greatest interest and I suspect that’s the agenda that they’re really turning to. Now I believe that is profoundly dangerous for a range of reasons, I think it is more important than pure party politics, I’ve set out often enough my fears about a Scottish tax-raising Parliament and my fear remains that if you go down the route of a Scottish tax-raising Parliament you are lighting the fuse towards an independent Scotland and the break-up of the United Kingdom.

    Now I have set that out before the last general election and I passionately believe that to be the case and you can see the way in which opinion in Scotland, particularly amongst young people, seems to be moving. And if you had a Scottish Assembly, it would fail, of course, that would come into conflict with the Westminster Parliament most certainly, then you are setting up the scenario for a dispute between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament that would lead to a demand for independence. Now whether that would be in five years, ten years, I don’t know, but I it is profoundly dangerous that people look, not just at the short-term politics of this, but as the long-term constitutional implications of what the Labour Party and the Liberal Party are proposing. I think it is very dangerous, it is certainly going to be a substantive part of their secret discussions, of that I’ve no doubt and I believe the impact upon the United Kingdom will be thoroughly bad and the job of politicians is to stand up and look at the long-term implications and to explain, even though it may be popular in the short-term, why it is a bad thing for the United Kingdom in the long-term.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if a bad thing for the United Kingdom would be popular north of the border].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well superficially popular in Scotland certainly, but I don’t think the extra taxes they’d get would be very popular. I mean this would be followed by a new Scottish Parliament, that’s going to have to be paid for, more money on more bureaucrats, more money on more politicians and an agreement already that they could raise tax in Scotland by 3 pence in the pound. Now in the abstract one can see that people are not too worried about that, when the reality occurs and they have to pay more tax than the English, the Northern Irish and the Welsh I think it will be different and then when companies stop investing in Scotland because their employees paid higher tax and demanded higher wages then the huge change you have seen in Scotland over the last ten years, the tremendous drop in unemployment, the great widening of job opportunities will begin to disappear and I think then people would look back and say ‘we have bought a pig in a poke’. I don’t believe Scotland wants to be divorced from the rest of the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought a Scottish Parliament would win votes for parties that supported it].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I don’t see it primarily as that, I think it may well be providing we can persuade people of the dangers and I will attempt to do so and I’ve been consistent on this for a number of years. I believe it is a profound mistake to the United Kingdom, that is the first point. The other element of their agenda of course, is the proportional representation and what they’re seeking to do of course is to, as the with the Scottish parliament which they would propose to introduce without reducing the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster, what they’re proposing to do effectively is to gerrymander the constitution. They’re determined to try and change a voting system, we have seen what that means right across Europe where you have minority governments, the inability to take really difficult decisions and perhaps above all the removal of choice from the electorate. If you have proportional representation and cosy agreements between the political classes then the electorate’s choice is diminished, they cannot say “I’ve had enough of this lot, out with them”. Because they’re fixed with other people unless there is a quite cataclysmic change in voting habits that would simply return the same people time after time.

    So I believe it is very, very damaging and I hope people will focus firstly on the fact that this has been done in secret, I wonder how many of the Shadow Cabinet know about the detail of these discussions before they leaked. I wonder how many of the Liberal Parliamentary Party know. I wonder after all this Labour talk of consultation what consultation there’s been with the average Labour supporter up and down the country. The answer is none of course, absolutely none.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the General Election – 5 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made in an interview on 5th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the talks between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think there are several things to be said about it. I don’t think there’s any secret that they’ve been talking. The substantive part of what they’ve been agreeing of course has been secret. I’m rather surprised they’ve kept the whole thing quite as secret as they have, it’s clearly leaked in the Sunday Times and they then briefed other papers. But the substantive issue of what they’re discussing I think is very important.

    Now what is shown this morning of their agreement I suspect is just the hors d’oeuvre of what they’re really discussing. The key point of course, that they will turn to, is the Scottish Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and then of course changing the voting system in the United Kingdom. Those will be the points of greatest interest and I suspect that’s the agenda that they’re really turning to. Now I believe that is profoundly dangerous for a range of reasons, I think it is more important than pure party politics, I’ve set out often enough my fears about a Scottish tax-raising Parliament and my fear remains that if you go down the route of a Scottish tax-raising Parliament you are lighting the fuse towards an independent Scotland and the break-up of the United Kingdom.

    Now I have set that out before the last general election and I passionately believe that to be the case and you can see the way in which opinion in Scotland, particularly amongst young people, seems to be moving. And if you had a Scottish Assembly, it would fail, of course, that would come into conflict with the Westminster Parliament most certainly, then you are setting up the scenario for a dispute between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament that would lead to a demand for independence. Now whether that would be in five years, ten years, I don’t know, but I it is profoundly dangerous that people look, not just at the short-term politics of this, but as the long-term constitutional implications of what the Labour Party and the Liberal Party are proposing. I think it is very dangerous, it is certainly going to be a substantive part of their secret discussions, of that I’ve no doubt and I believe the impact upon the United Kingdom will be thoroughly bad and the job of politicians is to stand up and look at the long-term implications and to explain, even though it may be popular in the short-term, why it is a bad thing for the United Kingdom in the long-term.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if a bad thing for the United Kingdom would be popular north of the border].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well superficially popular in Scotland certainly, but I don’t think the extra taxes they’d get would be very popular. I mean this would be followed by a new Scottish Parliament, that’s going to have to be paid for, more money on more bureaucrats, more money on more politicians and an agreement already that they could raise tax in Scotland by 3 pence in the pound. Now in the abstract one can see that people are not too worried about that, when the reality occurs and they have to pay more tax than the English, the Northern Irish and the Welsh I think it will be different and then when companies stop investing in Scotland because their employees paid higher tax and demanded higher wages then the huge change you have seen in Scotland over the last ten years, the tremendous drop in unemployment, the great widening of job opportunities will begin to disappear and I think then people would look back and say ‘we have bought a pig in a poke’. I don’t believe Scotland wants to be divorced from the rest of the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought a Scottish Parliament would win votes for parties that supported it].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I don’t see it primarily as that, I think it may well be providing we can persuade people of the dangers and I will attempt to do so and I’ve been consistent on this for a number of years. I believe it is a profound mistake to the United Kingdom, that is the first point. The other element of their agenda of course, is the proportional representation and what they’re seeking to do of course is to, as the with the Scottish parliament which they would propose to introduce without reducing the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster, what they’re proposing to do effectively is to gerrymander the constitution. They’re determined to try and change a voting system, we have seen what that means right across Europe where you have minority governments, the inability to take really difficult decisions and perhaps above all the removal of choice from the electorate. If you have proportional representation and cosy agreements between the political classes then the electorate’s choice is diminished, they cannot say “I’ve had enough of this lot, out with them”. Because they’re fixed with other people unless there is a quite cataclysmic change in voting habits that would simply return the same people time after time.

    So I believe it is very, very damaging and I hope people will focus firstly on the fact that this has been done in secret, I wonder how many of the Shadow Cabinet know about the detail of these discussions before they leaked. I wonder how many of the Liberal Parliamentary Party know. I wonder after all this Labour talk of consultation what consultation there’s been with the average Labour supporter up and down the country. The answer is none of course, absolutely none.