The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: China

  • 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 Press Conference in Tokyo – 20 September 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Tokyo, held on Monday 20th September 1993.

    QUESTION (Sanke Newspaper):

    It is indeed a great honour for me to ask the first question. My question is as follows. There are discussions to reform the UN Security Council and for Japan to become a permanent member, what is the view of the Prime Minister of the UK, do you think that Japan should become a Permanent Member of the Security Council and if so what conditions should she fulfil?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are now engaged I think in what will be a continuing debate about the reform of the Permanent Membership of the Security Council, I think that debate will take a while, there are a number of countries that have obvious credentials, Japan of course, Germany of course, but I think other countries will have ambitions to become Permanent Members of the Security Council and of course to fulfil the obligations that Permanent Members traditionally fulfil. I think that reform debate is now engaged, it will continue for some time.

    The primary concern I think as that debate does proceed is to make sure that whatever the outcome of that debate may be that the Permanent Membership of the United Nations retains the same compatibility that it has at present and is able to act as sufficiently decisively as it can today. It is the effectiveness and efficiency of the Permanent Members that will be primarily in our minds as we look at the question of reform. Clearly the members likely to join the Security Council will need to fulfil the same international criteria that has been the case in the past but I have no doubt that as the debate about the reform proceeds, when it concludes, that Japan is likely to be one of the beneficiaries.

    QUESTION (Japan Economic Journal):

    Ambassador Kistanura [phon] in the newsletter of the Japan Society has written that the Japan/UK relationship has come to a very favourable relationship, unseen in the past, I think in terms of Opportunity Japan, Priority Japan, The Japan Festival, all of these committees have led to such a good relationship. In the eyes of Japan our relationship with the UK is something that we regard highly. In order to further strengthen our relationship what kind of things should Japan do?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think as you rightly said the United Kingdom/Japan relationship in trade and economic matters is already very strong. A whole series of initiatives – Priority Japan springs immediately to mind, the large conferences by the UK and Japan and by Japan and the UK – have built up the relationship quite dramatically over the last few years. I think there are two aspects to the relationship: the first is political and the second is economic and trade. If I could say a word about both I would then like to ask Michael Perry to say a word also about the trading relationship.

    Let me touch on the political relationship first. I think that it is self-evident that Asia as a whole is being given a new priority in British policy. It is a time of dynamic political and economic change in Asia and the Pacific and I put that in the general area. But I would say more specifically that Japan is central to Britain’s approach in Asia and our political relationship is closer than it has been for a long time and the relationship between Japan, Britain and other large nations in dealing with international affairs is more effective and more efficient than we have known it in the past and that is going to continue, There is a distinct wish in British foreign policy to give a new priority to our relationship with Japan and our relationship more generally with Asia.

    On trade and economic matters we propose to build on the special relationship that has existed. There has been a very substantial trade flow between the United Kingdom and Japan, the recession of course has affected that, as it has affected every other trade relationship, but it is still growing and British exports, for example, to Japan have grown very dramatically in recent years. That is going to continue. The Prime Minister and I agreed earlier this afternoon that we would have a very high profile conference in London in the early part of January to carry the relationship forward. Richard Needham, the Minister for Trade, and Michael Perry as a businessman with immense experience of Japan and with particular responsibilities, will be looking at how we can carry our trade relations even further and will be making more announcements about that in the New Year.

    So I do not think there is anything new and fresh that I would particularly ask of Japan, what I would ask is that we continue going in the direction that we have been going for a long time. Many of the inhibitions to access to Japan’s markets have gone, some of the cultural inhibitions have not yet gone and there are still some individual areas that I have been discussing with the Prime Minister where we would like some further action. But overwhelmingly we are very pleased with the direction of policy.

    So I think that the relationship will continue to develop and ripen and I would like, with the Chairman’s permission, since I speak upon these matters as a politician, to ask a practising businessman with immense experience of Anglo/Japanese relations, perhaps to add a word on the trading aspects.

    MR PERRY:

    The development of Anglo/Japanese trade relations has been very positive, as the Prime Minister has said, in the last 5 or 10 years. The reason for that of course is in the first place the opening up of the market here and secondly the great cooperation we have had from all involved in the process of identifying markets and bringing the goods and services of Britain to the attention of Japanese buyers. There are of course still a number of areas which we are discussing together, in particular matters of deregulation in the financial and invisible sectors but we know that these are matters which concern Japanese businessmen too and we are encouraged to believe that these matters are being addressed.

    Overall we are concerned as British businessmen that we should be trading together in a multilateral trading system which means that we are judged on the quality of our goods and services, and that is all we ask.

    QUESTION:

    In your talks with the Prime Minister what points did you talk about and which points did you find agreement on in terms of trade and investment related matters?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We touched on a number of bilateral matters on trade and we shared a view that we must carry the trading relationship forward in the way I described a few moments ago. More widely and. perhaps immediately more crucial for all of us, we spent some time discussing the Uruguay Round and share a determination that that should come to a successful conclusion by 15 December and we spent a very considerable time upon that particular matter. That is an important multilateral agreement that I believe will re-engender a great deal of confidence in the international community, engender an increase in trade and an increase in trans-territorial investment and a creation of jobs and prosperity. So we spent a great deal of time discussing that in particular.

    The converse of course, about which the Prime Minister and I also agreed, was the immense damage that would be done to international confidence and trade were there not to be an agreement in the Uruguay Round.

    QUESTION (Sanke Newspaper):

    Today there will be a joint meeting between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Agriculture in Brussels and they will be talking about the agreement on agriculture to which France is opposed, do you think that if the present situation continues the basic agreement could be reached by the end of the year and did you ask anything of Mr. Hosokawa about the opening of Japan’s rice market?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The meeting that there is in Brussels is a very important meeting, I can express to you the United Kingdom’s view about that very simply and very crisply. The European Community negotiators reached an agreement with the United States at Blair House, we have reached an agreement, we should keep to the agreement, it should not be re-opened and I see no reason for it to be re-opened. That is the view that the United Kingdom takes about Blair House. Agriculture is difficult, self-evidently difficult, but I think it cannot be permitted to prevent the completion of the Uruguay Round on 15 December, it cannot and it must not be permitted to do that so we will have to find a solution to the difficulties of individual members in the intervening period. think there are ways in which that can be done but certainly it cannot be done by re-opening Blair House, that is an agreement that has been done.

    We did not specifically discuss any details from the Japanese point of view of elements of the Uruguay Round but we did discuss the necessity to reach an agreement and Prime Minister Hosokawa made it clear to me that he too favours reaching an agreement.

    QUESTION (Jonathan Annals, Evening Standard Business Day):

    You just expressed your commitment to securing the successful completion of the Uruguay Round, earlier this afternoon Mr Davis from the CBI said that bilateral trade agreements were dangerous and they tended to undermine and perhaps replace multilateral agreements perhaps such as GATT. What is your view of the so-called trade framework talks which began yesterday in Hawaii between Japan and the United States which are intended to increase sales of American products in Japan sector by sector and reduce the trade deficit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I share the view that was expressed by Howard Davis of the CBI, what we are looking for is a free trading, multilateral world, that is undoubtedly what is in everyone’s interests, that is what the GATT Round is about and. that must have pre-eminence in our discussions and in our concern. I was not present at any bilateral discussions but if you are going to have a proper free trading system around the world then it has to operate on a multilateral basis and that is and will remain our position.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC):

    On a domestic matter, could you say whether you are disappointed with the reaction of some of your MPs who appear to have rejected your appeal which you made here in Tokyo yesterday for loyalty to yourself and to the government. One of them said that you were out of touch with the feelings in Britain?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am here to look after British interests at home and abroad, to advance the British interests. I do not know which Member of Parliament said that, I do not know in what context he said it, do not know in response to what question he said it, and I think in the absence of knowing any of that I am not going to comment on the remarks of one of over 330 of my Conservative Members of Parliament. I can tell you that the overwhelming view of the Conservative Party is that we have come through the recession, we have now got a satisfactory platform for what we have been seeking for a long time – growth with low inflation. That is a tremendous opportunity for British industry domestically and British industry and the British economy internationally. And it is to develop that that I am here, it is to develop that that the government’s policies are directed and it is to develop that that I believe I will have the overwhelming support not just of the Conservative Party but I think of people right across the country.

    QUESTION (Todo News Service):

    In your talks with the Prime Minister, on specific matters I am sure you talked about individual matters, I am imagining this, could you please tell us what kind of dialogue you had with the Prime Minister concerning individual matters?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We touched on a very large number of international matters, I think it would probably take between now and midnight to run through all the background and. ramifications of what we covered in our two hour session. But in terms of international matters we discussed China, we discussed Russia, we discussed the United Nations, I touched upon that earlier, we talked about Hong Kong, we discussed a range of matters related to GATT, we touched on bilateral matters, we touched on UN peace-keeping, we touched also on the subject of Prisoners of War, we touched also upon a scheme that we were able to announce today, funded by the British private sector, to take some Japanese post-graduate students from Japan to study at Oxford University in the United Kingdom and we were able to announce that today, we discussed the arrangements for the joint UK/Japan Conference to which we attach great importance, that will take place in January. Later on in the afternoon I discussed with the Foreign Minister a range of Asian matters, Cambodia took a fair amount of our time there. I would not promise you that that is an inclusive list but I think it gives a broad indication of the sort of matters we discussed.

    QUESTION:

    Before you came to Japan we heard that, perhaps emulating President Bush’s visit to Japan, you were bringing a lot of businessmen with you and that you were going into top sales here in Japan, there were such rumours before you came, but in that regard did you have any strong request to make to the Japanese government?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The British private sector is very able to make its own requests. You are quite right that I brought with me a very high powered delegation of very senior British businessmen and as I said earlier, and I am happy to repeat to this larger gathering, I think probably the most senior delegation of British businessmen ever collectively to leave the United Kingdom and certainly the most high powered delegation ever to accompany a Prime Minister abroad, Michael Perry is the leader.

    We had a series of discussions with the Kadanran [phon] this morning and I have had a series of meetings, of which I think you know. But I suppose the underlying point is this. We are still extremely keen to attract inward investment into the United Kingdom from Japan, I think that has been very successful from the point of the Japanese investor and I can certainly say it has been very welcome and very successful from the point of view of the United Kingdom. I wish to make it absolutely clear that we are happy to see that continue.

    Other than that what we are concerned about, and what Japan is concerned about, is opening up the world trading market so that decisions may be made upon merit in terms of trade, investment and the awarding of contracts, and it was matters relating to that that formed the bulk of our discussions throughout the day.

    QUESTION (Jiji News Service):

    I would like to go back a bit to Japan becoming a member of the Permanent Five, you mentioned that you talked about this with Prime Minister Hosokawa. On your part, if Japan wishes to become a member of the Permanent. Council, what specifically would you request from Japan and in your talks with the Prime Minister did you mention what kind of conditions you would attach for Japan to become a member?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There would be no specific Japanese conditions that we would expect Japan to follow, what we would expect is that any new members, whomsoever it may be, Japan, others as well if there are other additions, what we would expect is for Permanent Members to be able in principle to play a full role, as have the existing Permanent Members, across a whole range of responsibilities, including peace-keeping, the provision of troops from time to time and finance. So what we would wish is to ensure that the Permanent Members remained effective and to ensure that all the Permanent Members were able and prepared to undertake the same responsibilities that the present Permanent Members could take.

    But we would not be asking for any special or different responsibilities from any new applicant, whether Japan or anyone else.

    QUESTION:

    Given your strictures about the silly and stupid noises off about your leadership that you have been saying here, do you think it was a politically wise judgment for the Chancellor to actually pull a rabbit out of the hat about a leadership campaign going on in London involving himself, the Home Secretary and Mr Portillo? There are suggestions that you feel lonely and isolated as Prime Minister, is the job getting at you and isn’t loneliness and being solitary part of the hazard of the job?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have had some pretty extraordinary questions in the last two years, Gordon, three years, some of them actually from you, but I think that one probably takes the biscuit think the second part of it, Heaven alone knows where these nonsenses come from and I cannot speculate on that, it is not for me to suggest where everything that appears and is published comes from, if I did that no doubt I probably would feel very lonely and isolated, but I don’t, so I am not.

    As far as the first part of your question is concerned, I do not think it applies at all and I have simply no idea what led you to ask that part of the question.

    QUESTION:

    Did you discuss with Mr Hosokawa today the Yugoslavian problem and can you tell us is the war in Yugoslavia at its end and who or what is an obstacle to peace at the moment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer to the first half of the question is we did not this afternoon discuss Bosnia but it is quite probable that we will have the opportunity over dinner when we meet later on tonight to continue our discussions on a range of matters and I would imagine that Bosnia would be amongst them.

    As for the impediment to peace, it is difficult to determine precisely where it is, it seems to be a moving impediment, I do not think one can point the finger at any particular group and say they are the impediment to peace, the fact of the matter is that we want everyone to decide that they are going to reach a peaceful settlement and as this winter approaches it becomes increasingly urgent that that is the case. Last: winter the difficulties of delivering humanitarian aid were serious enough but last winter was fortunately a relatively mild winter in Bosnia, we cannot be certain that this winter will be the same, it may be a good deal more savage and that would mean that the hardship, particularly with the extra period of fighting damaging the infrastructure and communications ever more daily, would potentially be a disastrous occurrence.

    So I think there is a very great premium on every participant deciding that it is necessary to reach an agreement and reach an agreement speedily. The negotiators, David Owen from the United Kingdom amongst them working for the United Nations, are working very hard to achieve such an agreement and I hope that every wise international friend of Bosnia will put whatever pressure they can on the participants to make sure that an agreement is made and crucially kept. I think people are getting pretty cynical, month after month after month, of artificial bogus agreements being signed, promised and broken within hours of their signature. So I think we want to see some concrete action by each of the participants in this dreadful conflict.

    QUESTION:

    I apologise for coming back, Prime Minister, but the Chairman asked me whether I was satisfied with the answer and as I am not I thought I might just come back. Was it wise for the Chancellor to talk about a leadership battle going on in the party against you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He did not, as far as I am aware he did not and there is not and I am not aware of one and there is not one and I know it is a great disappointment to many people because it will undoubtedly be very newsworthy but the fact is there is no vacancy and neither is there going to be one.

    QUESTION (NHK):

    There exists a feeling of a great debt from World War II, there were many POWs and there is now an issue of compensation, what is your view regarding this issue? In relation to the reform of the UN Charter, do you think that this enemy clause regarding Japan should be excluded?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Upon the latter point there was no suggestions about the exclusion of Japan, the question of reform is under discussion and Japan is clearly a prime applicant should there be extension of the Permanent Membership. As far as your earlier question about Prisoners of War, the Prime Minister reiterated his earlier comments and we are having continuing bilateral discussion to see whether we can find a conclusion to this affair, but I do not think it is helpful to comment beyond that.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    In your discussion with the Prime Minister or with any of the business leaders did the current level of the Yen come up and its possible effects on trade?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No we did not directly discuss that, there is a very strong Yen at the moment and we discussed exchange rates generally but we did not discuss the particular point which you ask in your question.

    QUESTION (TASS):

    You mentioned that you discussed Russian problems today, could you go into more detail?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Only up to a point. We were looking at the reform programme in Russia, the difficulties that have been overcome and the opportunities and difficulties that lie ahead, that was the general thrust of our discussion. we both share a wish to see democracy firmly entrench itself in Russia, we understand the difficulties there have been but also the immense progress that has been made over the period of the last five years and we find that progress immensely reassuring. Nobody is in any doubt about the difficulties that lie ahead and we were just casting our mind forward to some of those.

    QUESTION (John Craig, Daily Express):

    You said today that we are on our way out of the hole, if that is right, why is it then that Conservative MPs are still sniping from the sidelines, as your Conservative Party Chairman describes it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I described to you what the economic circumstances undoubtedly are. We were in recession for far longer than I would have wished, for a couple of years or so, it was longer and it was a deeper recession than I wished. Self-evidently Britain is now out of recession, the CBI for example think our growth will be rather higher than the Treasury have forecast, but I think there is no doubt that we will have the highest growth in the Community this year and a higher level of growth next year and again the highest level in the Community. So I think when you ally that to the fact that our exports are booming, our productivity has risen, and I think there is no doubt when one puts that against the other economic developments that we are seeing domestically, that the British economy is recovering in precisely the way we would wish it to recover if we are to have a sustained period of growth with low inflation. It has not been easy to achieve that, it has been very painful not least for many companies and many people in the United Kingdom, but it has been achieved, what we now have to do is to use that platform to make sure we can sustain it over a very long period and that is the matter that concerns me.

    As far as sniping concerned, politics is sometimes about sniping, but it does not alter the realities and the realities are that the thing that is of greatest importance is the growth of the British economy, the return to increasing prosperity and the opportunity to put more British citizens back to work, that is what. I am concentrating on, that is what the government is concentrating on and I fervently hope that is what every Member of Parliament will concentrate on.

    QUESTION (NHK):

    Four years from now Hong Kong will be returned to China, this is a relevant question, the UK had a colony over the past 150 years, how do you view this UK colonial rule in Asia for this past 150 years? In 1902 there was an Anglo/Japanese alliance but during World War II we had a different relationship, how do you view Japan’s dominance in Asia during World War II?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are some things, I am predominantly concerned with looking at the present day position and what the opportunities are for the future. But as far as past colonial rule is concerned, a great deal of that was a long time ago, I think it offered a great deal to a large part of the world. At the moment we are moving towards the end of British responsibility for Hong Kong, that will end formally in 1997, that does not mean we will not continue to have a very strong and powerful affection for Hong Kong, we most certainly will, it does not mean we will not have a continuing interest in Hong Kong, we certainly will, it does not mean we will not continue to have a great deal of trade relationships with Hong Kong and investment in Hong Kong, we most certainly will do all of those things, and what we are concerned to do is to make sure that Hong Kong is able to continue as a free and open entrepôt in the future, just as it has done in the past, and I think in our negotiations with China we will be able to achieve that outcome.

    QUESTION:

    Concerning the privacy law in terms of press coverage in your country we have heard a lot about the possibility and need for protection of privacy being discussed in your country, about self-regulating bodies being established, what does the government think about this, are you thinking about some legal approach to this matter or are you going to leave it in the hands of the self-regulatory bodies? In this regard it seems like the White Paper is delayed in being produced, could you explain the situation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you have heard the evidence of your own ears that our friends, the British press, are not repressed, they look like a pretty free and open press to me and I have absolutely no doubt that they will be as irrepressible in the future as they have been in the past. We do have a report that was commissioned on the subject of that matter and we are examining that report and will make our announcement soon, but I think we had better finish our examination and I do not think it would be prudent to make any announcement of that sort in Tokyo, I think that is an announcement that will be best made when conclusions are reached in London.

    CHAIRMAN:

    We would like to end this Q and A session, can we have any message to the Japanese people regarding your visit here to Japan, can we have the last remarks from you, Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would simply wish to say this in conclusion. The relationship between Japan and the United Kingdom has grown and widened and deepened very significantly over the last decade or so, one notices that most obviously in the trading and economic relations, I think one increasingly sees it in international cooperation as Asia becomes self-evidently more authoritative in the world at large, So I regard our relationship with Japan as extremely important and I am delighted to have had the opportunity of returning to Japan for the second time in just a few weeks.

    There are as you may know, or perhaps you may not know, there are many tens of thousands of Japanese students in the United. Kingdom and there are quite a few British students in Japan and I think that shows the extent to which as the generations move on the relationship between our two countries becomes ever closer and think that is a very welcome development and I welcome the opportunity to express it.

    CHAIRMAN:

    Thank you very much, Mr Prime Minister. In a very tight schedule you joined us and we appreciated very much your joining us at this National Press Club. From the Japan National Press Club, as is customary, I would like to present you with a small memento of this occasion. This is a pen done with Japanese craftwork.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you very much, I think this is the way to conduct a press conference and I think you have probably set a precedent that I am sure my colleagues from the United Kingdom will wish to follow on every future occasion.

  • Press Release – Prime Minister’s Comments on Foreign Policy – 24 March 1992

    Below is the text of the Conservative Party Press Release on Mr Major’s comments on foreign policy. It was issued on Tuesday 24th March 1992, reference 575/92.

    THE BEST TEAM FOR A DANGEROUS WORLD

    “Some people regard foreign affairs as an optional extra in a British General Election. But, in truth, they are not,” the Rt Hon John Major, Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party, told a press conference at Conservative Central Office, today.

    The last year has been dominated by overseas concerns: the Gulf War, the Maastricht agreement, the future of Hong Kong and its relationship with China, South Africa, human rights, the renaissance of the Commonwealth and the immense turmoil in the former Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe.

    In these events the United Kingdom has played a leading role. We fought as America’s main ally in the Gulf – and successfully. We won an agreement at Maastricht against expectations – and against the opposition of some of our partners.

    We safeguarded the future of Hong Kong, secured the building of the airport and sought better human rights in China and Tibet.

    We promoted South Africa’s position in world talks and supported the peace talks with both President De Klerk and Mr Mandela.

    And we led the way in supporting reform throughout the Russian coup, backed Russia’s application to the IMF, demanded tangible aid for the Russians and signed the first accord with them for nearly 200 years.

    The future will be equally crowded. We must come to terms with the new security situation in Europe and the rest of the world.

    We must fight our corner in the European Community over the Common Agricultural Policy, future financing, the Single Market, and enlargement of the EC. And we must do so as President of the Community.

    We must continue to bind the Commonwealth together and encourage good government.

    We must give a lead at the Rio summit.

    We must retain strong defences, commission the fourth Trident submarine and command the Rapid Reaction Corps in the newly modernised NATO forces.

    These are immense tasks for the immediate future. The question at this Election is a stark one. Whom can you trust to defend our interests and keep Britain safe?”

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 October 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st October 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Official Visits

    Mr. Atkinson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visits to the Soviet Union, China and Hong Kong.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    During my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow on 1 September, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, he had meetings with President Gorbachev, President Yeltsin and members of the committee for the management of the national economy. It was the first visit to the Soviet Union by a foreign Head of Government following the failed coup on 19 August. The Prime Minister expressed our strong support for the continuing process of economic and political reform in the Soviet Union and discussed ways in which we and our partners could assist. The Prime Minister also had a first meeting with the Prime Ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania following their independence, and agreed with them on the desirability of developing close and friendly relations.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Peking from 2 to 4 September and met Premier Li Peng, President Yang Shangkun and party secretary Jiang Zemin. The central element in the Prime Minister’s visit was the signature of the memorandum of understanding on the Hong Kong airport project. The Prime Minister also raised human rights and discussed international and bilateral issues. We reached agreement on a number of issues related to Hong Kong which we set out in the joint communique of 4 September, a copy of which is being placed in the Library.

    In Hong Kong my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had meetings with the Governor and members of the Executive Council and met a wide cross-section of leaders and representatives from the political, municipal and business communities. He also visited the city polytechnic using the mass transit railway–a British export success. The Prime Minister made clear in Hong Kong the Government’s commitment to the continued success of Hong Kong, and to the maintenance of effective British administration until 1 July 1997. There was widespread satisfaction that the vital airport project is now going ahead.

     

    Switzerland (Military Agreements)

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Swiss organisations with which Her Majesty’s Government have made any agreement since 1979 to provide military training in combat, communications and sabotage.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    Military training has been provided to personnel of the Swiss armed forces, but it is not our practice to comment on the details of such training.

     

    Downing Street Office

    Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister what is the latest annual figure for the cost of running the Private Office at 10 Downing Street; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The total cost of all my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s offices in 1990-91 was £8,225,816

    Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs, the costs of office services and the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust are included. The Prime Minister’s salary is excluded.

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to return to the Tate gallery, London, the Turner paintings “A Quiet Ruin” and “Sunset”, which are currently on loan to his office in No. 10 Downing Street.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    There is no set loan period; the paintings will be returned to the Tate gallery when the trustees so request.

     

    Hospitality Costs

    Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister what is the latest annual figure for the cost of hospitality provided by 10 Downing Street; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The cost of official hospitality met by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s office during 1990-91 was £20,904.

     

    Foreign Visits

    Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister what is the most recent figure for the cost of foreign visits made by the Prime Minister since 22 November 1990; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply. The cost of foreign visits made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister since 22 November 1990 is £550,219, including costs of his staff, but excluding outstanding costs of a number of recent visits.

     

    Zimbabwe

    Sir Eldon Griffiths : To ask the Prime Minister if, during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare, he raised with the Zimbabwe Government the situation of British retirees who worked there as civil servants and/or police officers, and whose occupational pensions, payable by Zimbabwe, have lost much of their value; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    No. I understand that the Zimbabwe Government are meeting their legal obligations on the payment of pensions to their former public servants.

     

    City Challenge

    Mr. Blunkett : To ask the Prime Minister what Government Departments have agreed to participate in the city challenge initiative; and what steps he has taken to ensure that their departments give a priority to participating in city challenge.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply. All Government Departments with relevant responsibilities are participating in city challenge. They are assessing their contribution to the initiative as the 11 city challenge authorities work up their proposals in detail.

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty’s Government’s policy on Yugoslavia.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 14 October at column 40.

     

    Energy Conservation

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if his Department has carried out an energy audit of the properties at 10 Downing Street and the Chequers estate within the last year;

    (2) what measures have been taken over the last year to improve energy conservation at 10 Downing street and the Chequers estate.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    An energy audit of 10 to 12 Downing Street was carried out in late 1990. The implementation of all the audit’s recommendations will be completed by the end of the year. The Chequers estate is the responsibility of the Chequers Trust.

     

    Ozone Layer

    Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister what is his latest information in regard to the policy of the Indian Government towards signing the Montreal protocol to protect the global ozone layer.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My understanding is that the Indian Government intend to become a party to the Montreal protocol once there are sufficient ratifications to bring into force the amendments agreed at the second meeting of the parties in London last year. It is hoped that we will reach that position by the end of this year.

     

    UK Nuclear Deterrent

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the basis for his calculation of the minimum size of the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    We maintain our nuclear deterrent at the minimum size necessary to ensure that any potential aggressor is faced by the prospect of intolerable damage if he proceeds.

     

    Kuwait

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what matters were discussed in his meeting with Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah of Kuwait in London on 4 October; and what matters were agreed.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s discussions with the amir covered a number of international and bilateral issues and underlined the strength of our relationship. The Prime Minister welcomed the political changes now under way in Kuwait and stressed the importance of fair and humane treatment of foreign nationals in the country.

     

    BR Fare Increases

    Mr. Adley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will indicate the criteria he employed in determining which lines should be subject to his intervention in the decision by British Rail on fare increases on individual lines; and what is his policy on intervention in day-to-day decisions on management within nationalised industries.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    The boards of nationalised industries are appointed to manage their industries in accordance with the financial frameworks and objectives set by the Government. The Government have no wish to involve themselves in day-to-day management matters. However, the chairmen regularly consult Ministers about major management decisions which may have an impact on the achievement of their objectives. British Rail’s recent fares increases are a case in point. In commenting on British Rail’s proposals, Ministers took account of the citizen’s charter principle that increases should be related to quality of service; the need to fund BR’s large investment programme and our general policy that the burden of funding BR should be progressively shifted from taxpayers to passengers.

     

    French Prime Minister

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to defence issues were discussed in his meeting with his French counterpart on 24 September in London.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    Mme. Cresson and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister concentrated on European Community questions on 24 September. They discussed the roles of NATO, the Western European Union and the European Council in the defence field. The Prime Minister stressed the importance of Europe doing more for its own defence, in a way which does not undermine NATO. They agreed on the importance of enhanced bilateral collaboration in this sphere.

     

    Dalai Lama

    Mr. Graham : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to meet the Dalai Lama of Tibet in the near future.

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no plans to do so.

     

    Environmental Protection Agency

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress made over the past three months to establish the central agency for environmental protection and enhancement.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    The Government’s proposals for a new, independent environment agency were set out in a consultation paper issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 3 October. A copy of the consultation paper, on which views have been invited by 31 January 1992, has been placed in the Library.

     

    Research and Development

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister when the annual review of Government-funded research and development, “R & D 91”, was published; how many copies of the report were printed; at what cost; and what attempts have been made to circulate the report to interested organisations and libraries in the United Kingdom.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    The annual review of Government-funded research and development, “R & D 91”, was published on 24 July 1991. Two thousand copies were printed and it is on sale through HMSO for £25. The printing and publishing costs totalled £25,800 and are offset by sales to date of 1,396 : copies of the review’s tables are also available on computer-readable disks.

    A total of 355 copies have been distributed to the Libraries of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, United Kingdom Government Departments, United Kingdom-based embassies, United States National Science Foundation, the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology, research councils, Universities Funding Council, Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and in response to requests from a number of other interested organisations.

     

    Soviet Union

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister is he will make a statement on his visit to Moscow in September.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    During my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow on 1 September, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, he had meetings with President Gorbachev, President Yeltsin and members of the committee for the management of the national economy. It was the first visit to the Soviet Union by a foreign Head of Government following the failed coup on 19 August. The Prime Minister expressed our strong support for the continuing process of economic and political reform in the Soviet Union and discussed ways in which we and our partners could assist. The Prime Minister also had a first meeting with the Prime Ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania following their independence, and agreed with them on the desirability of developing close and friendly relations.

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish details of the number of telephone conversations, by date, he had with (a) President Gorbachev, (b) President Yeltsin and (c) officials of the Soviet and Russian Federation Governments, respectively, during August; and what was the purpose of these telephone conversations.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to President Gorbachev on 22 August. President Gorbachev gave an account of his views on the events surrounding the coup and welcomed the prospect of a visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Moscow both in my right hon. Friend’s capacity as Prime Minister and as chairman of the G7.

    The Prime Minister spoke to President Yeltsin on two occasions. On 20 August he expressed British concern at the coup attempt, gave details of British and European Community actions and asked what other support the west could give to democratic institutions. On 21 August my right hon. Friend was able to congratulate President Yeltsin on his bravery, and that of the Russian people, in a memorable two days and to express the hope that my right hon. Friend would be able to meet him in the near future.

     

    China

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to (a) the environment in general and (b) the Montreal protocol and protection of the ozone layer, he had with Ministers of the Chinese Government during his visit to Beijing in September.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    None, though I understand that China has recently signalled the intention to satisfy the Montreal protocol.

     

    Ministerial Visits

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister when the Cabinet Office drew up rules governing party political activities of Ministers of the Crown when travelling abroad on public business; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    Each Prime Minister, on assuming office, issues guidance to Ministers on such issues. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to publish such guidance.

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions when he has participated in party political activities when travelling abroad on public business.

    Mr. MacGregor [holding answer 18 October 1991] : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does from time to time meet fellow Conservatives in the margins of public duties. He also often meets opposition leaders of all political persuasions both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr. Chief Secretary:

    Thank you very much indeed for that very generous introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (South China Morning Post):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Mike Brunson, ITN):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Hong Kong Economic Times):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Sally Blyth, RTHK)

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    Can I follow that up?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Brian Barron):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    RICHARD BESTICK (SKY NEWS):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    ANGUS FOSTER (FINANCIAL TIMES):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (ORIENTAL DAILY):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    TONY YIEWSLEY (AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (HONG KONG COMMERCIAL DAILY):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    PAUL REYNOLDS (BBC):

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (ATV NEWS, HONG KONG):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    SAME QUESTIONER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Hong Kong – 4 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview given on his arrival in Hong Kong on Wednesday 4th September 1991.

    QUESTION (Brian Barron, BBC TV):

    What sort of message, Mr. Major, do you bring to Hong Kong from Peking?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first message I bring to Hong Kong is that I am very pleased to be back in Hong Kong. It is many years since I was last here; I am very pleased to be back. I am much looking forward to the discussions I shall have, to what I shall see in the next day or so and to the opportunity to listen to the views of the people of Hong Kong. I think it is an important time to do that and I am very pleased to do it.

    I come here directly from Peking. The visit to Peking was in the interests of the people of Hong Kong, to ensure that we could sign the Airport Agreement and that that could proceed both in its own right and because of the impact that will have on the future prosperity of Hong Kong; and I also had the opportunity there of advancing work in the Joint Liaison Group – it previously was getting stuck, I think it will now advance and think that is very much in the interests of Hong Kong too.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Is the detainee going to be released in Hong Kong and even if he isn’t, is that a good gesture by the Chinese?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will have something to say when it has actually happened. I discussed that matter yesterday; I made my views about it quite clear. I very much hope that we will see some movement; when we have the movement, when the detainee is back here in Hong Kong, I shall feel free to comment.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    But they have said that they intend to release him. Do you regard that as a helpful gesture?

    PRIME MINISTER

    Yes, it is a helpful gesture but I would like the detainee back here in Hong Kong with his family where he belongs and when that happens I will be very pleased but let us wait and see it happen.

    QUESTION:

    And what do you hope to demonstrate by going to the Vietnamese boat people camp?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I want to see the problem for myself. Since my period as Foreign Secretary and onwards, I have been familiar with the problem. I have lived with it, not in the same way that people in Hong Kong have lived with the problem but it is one that has been there. It is a serious problem for the people of Hong Kong. It is serious for the Vietnamese people themselves who have come here in the wholly false belief that there is a place for all of them in the West; that isn’t the case. I wish to go and look at the camps for myself and judge the problem; I think it is wise to do so while I am here.

    QUESTION:

    Tell us a little bit about how you hope to return them to Vietnam.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I had better go to the camp. I will have a full press conference tomorrow and we will discuss all these matters on that occasion.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    There are a lot of fears here, as you know, that China is playing as it were too great a role already. Do you come from China reassured that that is not now the case?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is not the case and is not going to be the case. In the communique we issued yesterday, we reaffirmed fully the Joint Declaration; we reaffirmed the fact that between now and 1997 Hong Kong people are going to run Hong Kong – I explicitly made that point at the signing ceremony of the Memorandum of Understanding – that is the position. The arrangement is exactly as it was negotiated in 1984 and hasn’t changed.

    QUESTION:

    But Peking will have a say in borrowing requirements, we have been told.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are many things that go on and extend way beyond 1997 in which it is in the interests of Hong Kong to have a stable situation that will survive after 1997. We have to deal with these things on a practical basis. All that was foreseen in the theory and the clauses of the Joint Declaration; we have reaffirmed that again. We have reaffirmed explicitly yet again that after 1997 Hong Kong will continue for 50 years at least in the same capitalist tradition that has made it such a remarkable success in recent years. I went to Peking to make sure all that was re-confirmed; it was re-confirmed; it was re-confirmed in the communique; both China and Britain have put their signatures to that communique so upon that point I am here to reassure Hong Kong but predominantly I am here to look, to listen and to see how we take policy forward.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on China – 3 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on China, made in an interview held in Peking on Tuesday 3rd September 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the talks with Li Peng broke the usual formalities].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not believe that it does. Our discussions today were about bilateral matters, about international matters in our shared responsibilities as members of the Security Council and specifically about human rights. There are very strong feelings about human rights and I think it is necessary to express those not discourteously but bluntly and clearly.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked for how long in advance he had intended to raise the matter of human rights].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In my discussions today with Premier Li Peng I not only expressed my concerns, not only detailed the cases and the events that were of concern to me, but we agreed that this was a matter that would be discussed further between us. So a dialogue has been established, that is a new set of circumstances.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked when the decision had been made].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The issue of human rights, the fact that I was going to deal with that was in my mind from the moment I decided to come to China, it was one of the reasons for coming. It was necessary on its own to come to sign the Airport Agreement, I had no doubt in my mind about that, it was in the interests of Hong Kong, it was right to come and I would have come just for that. But having decided that I was coming for that, the opportunity was clearly there to discuss human rights and to register the concerns that I feel and that I believe people around the world feel about many matters in China.