The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Hong Kong

  • Sir John Major’s Speech in Hong Kong on the UK’s EU Membership – 7 April 2016

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech in Hong Kong made on Thursday 7 April 2016.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    During the last few days in Hong Kong I have been asked repeatedly whether the UK will leave the European Union.

    Almost without exception, the questioners – often investors in the UK – believe it is a bad idea. I will not quote their warnings given to me in private, but let the public remarks of Hong Kong’s Li Ka Shing, a large investor in the UK, speak for many:

    “If Brexit really happens”, he said on Bloomberg, “we will surely decrease our investments.”.

    Mr Li is not alone. As we move towards the referendum in June, the UK has been warned against exit by – amongst others – China, Japan, America, New Zealand and Australia; by the G20; the Governor of the Bank of England; our military leaders; our leading academics and scientists; and a majority of large and small businesses.

    In response, the advocates of Brexit accuse all these sources of “interfering” if they are foreign; or “scaremongering” if they are British.
    The “Out” campaign label such warnings – even from distinguished friends of the UK – as “Project Fear”. I disagree. In truth, it is Project Reality – and the British people have a right to be told what is likely to happen if the UK were to leave the EU.

    Let me set out my own position.

    As Prime Minister I refused to join the Euro currency. I believed it to be premature and risky. I also opted out of the Social Chapter since, at the time, it seemed to give rights to those in work, at the expense of denying work to the millions who were not. And – when it was first introduced – I refused to enter the Schengen agreement on open borders.

    I am, therefore, no starry-eyed European enthusiast. Yet I have not a shred of doubt that the UK should remain a Member of the EU.
    The case for remaining is most often seen in economic terms. But it is far wider than that. The outcome of the UK Referendum will decide what sort of country we are – and what our wider contribution to the world will be.

    When the UK joined the then Common Market our economy was the “sick man” of Europe: today, as a result of our domestic reforms, together with our membership of the European Single Market, we have the best performing economy in Europe.

    Within the next 20 years – on present policies and, crucially, with continuing full access to the Single Market – the UK is likely – not certain, but likely – to be the biggest economy in Europe: bigger than Germany.

    On issues such as the environment, climate change, internet costs and consumer protection, the UK can best progress – or sometimes, only progress – in unity with our fellow Europeans.

    The underlying mantra of the “Out” campaign is – and I use their words – “I want my country back”. It is an emotional appeal, but a bogus one.

    If emotion triumphs over reality, then all four British nations will lose out: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We will lose power, prestige, security and some of our future economic well-being.

    At present, our world is very disturbed. Uncertain. Across Europe, the scales have fallen from our eyes over President Putin. We see Russia threatening her neighbours with trade embargoes, cyber attacks, energy cut-offs, and encouraging pro-Russian minorities to ferment trouble.

    I am not, and never have been, a Cold War warrior, but we ignore what Russia is doing at our peril.

    A united Europe can help penalise and deter her: a disunited, shrivelled Europe cannot.

    The faults and frustrations of the EU are widely publicised in the UK: its achievements, less so. But they should be. Across Europe, ancient enemies of many years no longer fight against each other – they work alongside each other.

    The EU was the magnet that helped Spain, Portugal and Greece free themselves from fascist dictatorships. It helped the political climate that brought about the Northern Ireland Peace Process.

    It helped re-build and heal the Balkans after a terrible conflict. And enlargement of the EU has brought a new future to countries once imprisoned within the Soviet Empire. So, when we criticise the shortcomings of the EU, we should also remember its considerable successes.
    If the UK leaves the EU, the impact will be felt widely – and negatively – not only in the UK but across the EU.

    If the UK departs, the EU will lose:

    – its fastest growing economy;

    – one of only two nuclear powers; and

    – the country with the longest and deepest foreign policy reach.

    As a result, the EU would be gravely weakened, especially when set against the power of the US and China. Europe – the cradle of modern civilisation – would bow out of super-power influence.

    Does the UK really wish to be the cause of that? Does she really wish to abdicate her role in European and global influence? I truly think not – but many enthusiasts for exit either cannot see the danger – or are prepared to run that risk.

    The point is this: a UK departure would not only be a huge setback for my own country, but for many other nations too. It would have widespread repercussions – and no-one can be sure what they will be.

    For Europe, already facing internal and external crises, it could be one crisis too many.

    There are hard questions for the UK too, and it is more appropriate for me to raise these in detail at home, rather than overseas. But some are directly relevant to our global trading partners.

    Would external investors – China, Japan, America, be more or less likely to invest in the UK if she shrunk to a domestic market of under 65 million, rather than remaining inside a Europe-wide market of over 500 million?

    That is not a difficult question to answer. The UK would lose investment and jobs. How much, how many, and how soon is difficult to say – but there is no doubt that would happen.

    In the referendum debate, the advocates of leaving claim they can negotiate an arrangement to protect our trade relationship with the EU. After all, they say, the EU needs us because they – the EU – export more to the UK than the UK exports to them. It’s a beguiling soundbite, but they are deceiving themselves.

    Their argument is, to put it kindly, disingenuous: more accurately, it turns the truth on its head.

    UK exports to Europe are between 40-45% of all our exports: 14% of our overall wealth. On average, across the EU, the other 27 Members States only send 7% of their total exports to us: 2½% of their overall wealth.

    In the game of who needs who the most, the answer is clear. If the UK exits the EU, our partners will not be the demandeur in any negotiations on our future access to the single market – the UK will be.

    Moreover, it is blithe optimism on a Panglossian scale for the “Out” campaign to assume our partners – having been rebuffed, deserted and weakened – will still feel so well disposed toward the UK that they will be eager to accede to our demands.

    I fear the reverse will be true. A divorce, at the behest of one partner, is rarely harmonious – or cheap. Such a broken relationship is more likely to be full of rancour.

    The UK will have chosen to leave and, by so doing, will have gravely weakened the whole EU. Some countries will see fifty years of ambition imperilled – and our partners will hardly wish to reward us for that.

    Any trade deal the EU might eventually do with us would certainly not be a sweetheart deal: and it may be harder and harsher than the optimists believe.

    And if we wished such a deal to include services (and we do – since they represent 80% of the UK economy) – or the removal of hidden non-tariff barriers – it may be a long time coming, not least since it would need the approval of 27 other Member States – many of them angry and disappointed at our departure.

    And, of course, the UK would have to accept free movement of people. If we refuse that – there will be no trade deal at all – as Germany, for one, has already made clear.

    The UK will face another dilemma with its international trade.

    By leaving the EU, we would be withdrawing from Free Trade Agreements with 53 countries negotiated by the EU on behalf of all their Member States. These cover 60% of all UK trade.

    They will all need re-negotiation: a tough – and almost certainly lengthy – process. It is pure self-deception to believe that less than 65 million Britons will get the same favourable terms as 500 million Europeans.

    Nor will bilateral renegotiations of these Free Trade Agreements be a priority for other nations – as America, for one, has made clear.

    Our partners are more concerned with multilateral trade agreements, and will see the UK’s need for a speedy bilateral deal as a self-imposed own goal: we may well have to wait our turn to have any new deals agreed – and it could take many years.

    To brush aside such realities is to play Russian roulette with the economic future of the UK.

    The battle now joined over Europe has – on one side – the romantic nostalgia of an “Out” campaign that aches for a past that has long gone, in a world that has moved on.

    On the other side those – like me – who wish to remain are not European dreamers: we are realists who see an edgy, uncomfortable world, and believe that the UK is safer, more secure and better off remaining with our partners in Europe.

    In the Referendum, the easiest slogans inevitably lie with the “Out” campaign, and repudiating their often foolish and extreme claims is for a UK audience. Suffice to say, the “Out” advocates, whether in enthusiasm or ignorance, lace their argument with false statistics and unlikely scenarios.

    They promise negotiating gains that cannot – and will not – be delivered. They hail the purported gains of leaving Europe, whilst ignoring even the most obvious obstacles and drawbacks.

    Nor can they tell us how they actually see the UK outside of Europe. This is simply astonishing, not least since some of them – for over a quarter of a century – have made a career out of wishing to leave the EU. Yet now they have the opportunity to do so they seem bereft of any real detail.

    Some wish to have no relationship at all with the Single Market. Others can’t – or won’t – say what relationship they favour: 25 years of planning, and they still have no idea. Instead, they engage in shrill denunciation of what we have, with no indication of what would replace it.
    I understand the frustration that fuels the “Out” campaign, but have no doubt that an exit from the EU would harm our nation, now and in the future. We must not let an emotional spasm of faux-patriotism overcome the realities of the modern world and spin us out of Europe.
    We would soon regret it. And our children and grandchildren would regret it even more.

    That is why – between now and June – I will be doing all I can to persuade the British people that the consequences of our leaving the EU would be bad for the UK, bad for Europe, and bad for the wider world.

    I hope and believe that – on 23 June – good sense will prevail, and we can finally lay this particular ghost to rest. I have no doubt that, once it is, our international investors will breathe a large sigh of relief … as most definitely will I.

  • Presidency Conclusions Following the Dublin European Council – 14 December 1996

    Below is the text of the Presidency Conclusions following the Dublin European Council meeting on the 13th and 14th December 1996.

    PRESIDENCY CONCLUSIONS

    1. INTRODUCTION

    The European Council, meeting in Dublin on 13 and 14 December 1996, took a number of significant decisions for the continued development of the European Union.

    The European Council:

    – achieved further decisive progress on Economic and Monetary Union,

    – identified a broad range of measures to be implemented at national and Community level aimed at boosting employment,

    – adopted the Dublin Declaration on Employment,

    – welcomed the general outline for a draft revision of the Treaties submitted by the Irish Presidency as a good basis for the final phase of the Intergovernmental Conference which should conclude at Amsterdam in June 1997,

    – adopted an important series of measures in the area of Justice and Home Affairs and, in particular, agreed ways and means to combat the scourges of drugs, organized crime, including terrorism, and the sexual exploitation of children,

    – reviewed the Union’s action in external relations.

    The European Council began its proceedings by an exchange of views with Mr. Klaus HÄNSCH, President of the European Parliament, on the main subjects for discussion at this meeting. It thanked Mr. HÄNSCH, who will be stepping down from office next January, for his valuable contribution to furthering constructive cooperation between the Institutions.

    A meeting also took place today with the Heads of State or Government and the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including the Baltic States, as well as Cyprus. There was a broad exchange of views on these conclusions and on matters pertaining to the field of Justice and Home Affairs, with particular reference to the fight against drugs and organized crime.

    1. ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION
    2. Economic and Monetary Union

    The European Council welcomes the further decisive progress which has been made in the preparations for EMU, which will begin on 1 January 1999.

    – The structure of the new Exchange Rate Mechanism has been agreed.

    – The urgent aspects of the legal framework for the use of the euro have been finalized for early adoption.

    – The principles and main elements of the Stability and Growth Pact for ensuring budgetary discipline in EMU have been agreed.

    The European Council therefore urges the institutions, public authorities and economic agents to intensify their preparations for the starting date of 1 January 1999.

    The European Council welcomes the excellent Report by the ECOFIN Council (annexed) on preparations for Stage 3 of EMU, which is fully in line with the conclusions of Madrid and Florence, and it pays tribute to the contributions, in their respective fields of competence, from the Commission and the European Monetary Institute (EMI). The contents of this Report are subject to Parliamentary reservations.

    In particular the European Council:

    – endorses the conclusions on the new exchange rate mechanism (ERM2) as proposed by the ECOFIN Council and the EMI. It invites the ECOFIN Council to prepare for the European Council in June 1997 a draft Resolution setting out the fundamental elements of the ERM2, following the precedent set in 1978 in relation to the present ERM. The EMI is invited to prepare, in parallel, a draft for an inter-central bank agreement, for submission to the European Central Bank and the central banks of the Member States not forming part of the euro area.

    – underlines the need to ensure durable budget discipline in Stage 3 of EMU and welcomes the agreement reached on the Stability and Growth Pact. It requests the ECOFIN Council to examine intensively the Commission proposals for two Regulations, one on the strengthening of the surveillance and co-ordination of budgetary positions and the other on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure. It invites the Commission to put forward a proposal for a Regulation on non-participating Member States. Furthermore, it invites the ECOFIN Council to prepare a draft Resolution on the Stability and Growth Pact to be adopted by the European Council in June 1997, recording the commitments of the Member States, the Commission and the Council to a strict application of the Treaty and the legal provisions on budgetary stability. The European Council notes that after it has adopted the Resolution, the Council will adopt the respective Regulations.

    – welcomes the agreement by the ECOFIN Council on the two Regulations establishing the legal framework for the euro which are being made public by the Presidency. It invites the Council to adopt the first Regulation based on Article 235 of the EC Treaty without delay. The second Regulation will be adopted by the Council as early as possible in 1998, once the decision on the Member States participating in the euro area has been taken.

    The Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government, has taken its decision under Article 109j(3) of the EC Treaty and confirms that the procedure laid down in Article 109j(4) will be applied as early as possible in 1998, with a view to the commencement of the third stage of EMU on 1 January 1999. In this context, the European Council welcomes the intentions of the Member States to further reduce budgetary imbalances in 1997 with a view to achieving the high degree of sustainable convergence required for participation in the single currency and it underlines the need for durable convergence in the third stage.

    The European Council underlines the importance of exchange rate stability for the process of convergence and the smooth operation of the internal market and accordingly warmly welcomes the entry into the ERM of the Finnish markka on 12 October 1996 and the re-entry of the Italian lira on 24 November 1996.

    The European Council underscores the need to make the euro tangible for citizens. In this regard, it welcomes the designs for the euro bank notes presented by the European Monetary Institute. It also welcomes the arrangements being made by the Commission for the design competition for the coins; this will allow the choice to be made during the Dutch Presidency.

    The Heads of State or Government decided to reappoint Baron Alexandre LAMFALUSSY as President of the European Monetary Institute as of 1 January 1997 until 30 June 1997. They decided to appoint Dr. Willem Frederik DUISENBERG, President of De Nederlandsche Bank, as President of the European Monetary Institute as of 1 July 1997 until the establishment of the European Central Bank.

    1. SEM 2000 (Sound and efficient management)

    The European Council endorsed the Council conclusions of 2 December 1996 on the report of the Personal Representatives Group on Sound Financial Management.

    It reaffirmed its support for the Commission’s SEM 2000 initiative and generally welcomed the recommendations in the report which constitute a substantial action programme to improve the financial management of EU expenditure in partnership between the Commission and the Member States.

    The European Council invited Council and Commission to report on progress in implementing the recommendations to its meeting in December 1997.

    III. EMPLOYMENT

    1. Growth and Employment in Europe – the way forward

    The fight against unemployment is the prime responsibility of the Member States but also a priority task of the Union. The European Council had an in-depth discussion on the growth and employment strategy, based on the joint report from the Council and the Commission on employment, the Commission’s progress report on the initiative for “Action on employment: a Confidence Pact” and the joint contribution by the social partners on the Confidence Pact which they adopted in Dublin on 29 November. In its deliberations it has also taken account of the proposals in President Chirac’s Memorandum on a European Social Model with a view to giving greater emphasis to the human dimension of the Union.

    The European Council, building on the Essen strategy, endorses the analysis contained in the Joint Report and urges the Member States to pursue this strategy with determination and consistency. It calls for continued support for this strategy by all relevant actors at European, national and local level, including the social partners and reaffirms the importance of equal opportunities.

    To underline its commitment to this strategy the European Council has adopted the Dublin Declaration on Employment (annexed), which reflects the recommendations in the Joint Report on the need for:

    – a continuation of the macroeconomic strategy for economic growth and employment in line with agreed economic policy guidelines,

    – increased efforts to modernize the markets for goods and services and to exploit new sources of employment,

    – a focusing on labour market efficiency and on investment in human resources,

    – making taxation and social protection systems more employment-friendly,

    – strengthening the interplay between macroeconomic and structural policies in the Member States’ Multi-annual Employment Programmes.

    It invites the Commission and the Member States, especially in the framework of the new Employment and Labour Market Committee and the Economic Policy Committee, to develop further the instruments for the effective monitoring and evaluation of employment and labour market policies and the identification of good practice. In particular, common employment indicators should be further developed and the possibilities of benchmarking should be assessed.

    The European Council welcomes the positive reaction to the initiatives on territorial employment pacts and urges swift implementation of the 60 projects proposed by the Member States.

    The European Council stresses once again the essential role of the Internal Market in promoting growth and employment in the Union. Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises has a crucial role to play to this effect. Whilst noting the progress that has been accomplished in this area, it remains concerned with the delays in the transposition and implementation of a number of Directives. It takes note of Commission’s intention to submit before the Amsterdam European Council an action plan and a timetable covering all necessary measures that must be taken to ensure that the full potential benefit of the Internal Market is achieved before the beginning of Stage 3 of EMU.

    The European Council noted the Commission report on the development of tax systems, which was drawn to its attention by the ECOFIN Council, underlining the need for further work on this issue. The European Council welcomed the Commission’s intention to continue the discussions in a tax policy group, paying particular attention to the effects of this policy on employment.

    The European Council welcomes the Commission’s plans in relation to innovation and the development of the information society as important inputs for the future development of the Union’s competitiveness. Investment in education and training are crucial for securing equal opportunities for all citizens to participate in and benefit from the information society. The European Council believes that there should be regular monitoring and evaluation of the Union’s competitiveness against world best practice along the lines of the conclusions on benchmarking adopted by the Industry Council.

    The European Council reiterates the importance of regulatory simplification and requests, in this context, the extension of the Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market (SLIM) initiative. It emphasizes that the effort to reduce administrative costs for enterprises, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, is necessary for Member States as well as the Community institutions and invites the Council to follow up in this respect its resolution on legislative and administrative simplification in the internal market.

    Postal services form an essential component of the communications infrastructure in the Union. The development of the internal market for postal services bears huge significance in economic and social terms. The European Council welcomes the intensive efforts made to date to effect relevant measures, but notes with regret that the Council has not reached a Common Position. It asks the Council to take a decision by the end of the year, taking account of the work already done at its meeting on 28 November 1996.

    The European Council asks the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission to take all steps so that an immediate decision to liberalize postal services can be taken. The universal service in the postal sector must remain assured.

    The European Council recognizes the importance of the implementation of the Trans-European Networks. It agrees with the proposal by the Portuguese and Spanish Governments that priority project No. 8 in list 1 from the Essen European Council will become the Multimodal link between Portugal/Spain and the rest of Europe.

    1. Subsidiarity and Proportionality

    The European Council reaffirms the importance of ensuring that the institutions apply subsidiarity and proportionality thoroughly to all legislative proposals. It welcomes the Commission’s 1996 “Better Law Making” report on the application of subsidiarity and proportionality, on simplification and on consolidation of legislation. The European Council invites the Commission to provide a progress report before the end of 1997.

    1. THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE

    The European Council welcomed the general outline for a draft revision of the Treaties submitted by the Presidency. This makes it possible for the negotiations to move now into their final phase.

    The European Council has also taken note of the recent letter from the German Chancellor and the French President which will be an important contribution to the further work of the Conference.

    The European Council reaffirms the importance of completing the Conference at Amsterdam in June 1997. The Presidency document provides a good basis for the work which lies ahead. As the document makes clear, delegations remain free to advocate their own proposals and to press their concerns in further negotiation.

    As it moves now into its final decisive phase, the Conference must seek to achieve a balanced outcome in all areas which will measure up to the aims and ambitions which the European Council has set for it. It is essential that the Union be equipped to face the challenges ahead as it prepares for the 21st century.

    The European Council notes with approval the progress at the Conference in identifying Treaty changes which would make the Union more responsive to the concerns of its citizens and it reaffirms the aims which it set out at Florence in this regard.

    The European Council notes with approval the particular importance which the Presidency document attaches to the area of Justice and Home Affairs. The European Council has agreed today on a number of important decisions under the existing Treaty provisions which are set out in Section V of the present conclusions. It asks the Intergovernmental Conference, taking account of the outline draft for Treaty revision presented by the Presidency, to work to reach agreement on a strengthened capacity for action in relation to visas, asylum, immigration, the crossing of external borders, the fight against drugs and international crime including terrorism, offences against children and trafficking in persons. Europol should have operative powers working in conjunction with the national authorities to this end. These issues are of the most serious concern to citizens in all Member States and the Union must be given the means to act effectively in these areas.

    The European Council also reaffirmed the aim which it set in Florence of developing the external action of the Union. The Union must enhance its capacity to ensure that its external action is coherent and effective in all its aspects, and it must improve its decision-making procedures, if it is to play a role in the world commensurate with its responsibilities and its potential. The European Council noted the approaches which the Presidency has identified in its document in relevant areas including the options for establishing a new function to enhance the visibility of the CFSP and the strengthening of links with the WEU.

    Institutional issues will be central to the next phase of the negotiations. The Union needs to improve its ability to take decisions and to act. This is already true today and it will be even more necessary as the Union moves to enlarge its membership further. The Union must have comprehensible, transparent and democratic procedures and strong and effective institutions which enjoy legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.

    The European Council notes that the Presidency document, responding to a view of many delegations that certain issues can be settled definitively only at a later stage in the Conference, does not include texts in Treaty form on the issue of flexibility and on certain sensitive institutional questions, although it offers an analysis of the issues and identifies options. In the next phase of the Conference solutions must be found on all institutional issues, including in particular on the size of the Commission, the role of the European Parliament, the collective association of national parliaments, the voting mechanisms in the Council and the functioning of the Court of Justice, while respecting the balances which have always been an important feature of European construction.

    The European Council also notes the progress made thus far in examining the proposals for Treaty provisions which would permit more flexible approaches leading to enhanced cooperation in appropriate areas, subject to agreed conditions. This issue is of great importance and the European Council asks the Conference to devote particular attention to it.

    The European Council emphasizes strongly that the future of the Union and the success of the further enlargement to which it has committed itself will depend on a satisfactory resolution of all of these questions.

    The European Council asks the Conference to develop the important proposal to amend the Treaties to establish it as a clear principle that no citizen of a Member State of the Union may apply for asylum in another Member State, taking into account international treaties.

    The European Council notes also the proposal submitted jointly by three delegations, since the presentation of the Presidency document, for the Treaty to include the specific character of the outermost regions of the Union and it asks that it be examined by the Conference.

    Finally, the European Council asks the Conference, on the basis of the preparatory work already carried out, to continue to work to present a significantly simplified version of the Treaties with a view to making them more readable and comprehensible to the Union’s citizens. This must be done in a way which does not reopen the acquis of the Treaties, preserves the pillar structure and does not delay the outcome of the Conference.

    1. JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS

    The European Council reaffirms its commitment to maintain and develop the European Union as an area of freedom, security and justice by putting to full use all of the instruments provided for in the Treaty on European Union.

    1. Fight against drugs

    The European Council welcomes the report from the Council on the substantial progress made since its last meeting in Florence and endorses the proposals for action contained in this report.

    The European Council welcomes, as a concrete expression of a shared political will, the agreement which has been reached on a Joint Action on the approximation of the laws and practices of police, customs services and judicial authorities in the fight against drug addiction and illegal drug trafficking, and the resolutions on sentencing for serious drug trafficking offences, on combatting drug tourism and on drug production and cultivation. It also welcomes the adoption of the Programme for Community action on the prevention of drug dependence.

    The European Council stresses that this constitutes a first step and that the momentum achieved must be maintained and further developed on those bases, in particular through:

    – continued examination of further harmonisation of laws, insofar as an agreed need for it is identified, complemented by reinforced cooperation between the Institutions and the Member States. In this context, the particular dangers posed by synthetic drugs deserve special attention;

    – continued review of further cooperation between law enforcement agencies to combat drug trafficking;

    – full application of the Directive on money laundering and its possible extension to those relevant professions and bodies outside the classical financial sector;

    – development by the Council and the Commission of the contribution which research activities can make in addressing the medical, socio-economic and detection aspects of drug abuse;

    – energetic implementation of the action plan to combat drugs in the Caribbean, as well as the implementation of the agreed follow-up of the report by the expert mission to Latin America;

    – further development of the structured dialogue with the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe in regard to drugs issues; comparable cooperation with the Russian Federation, initiated during the current Presidency, should be pursued;

    – following a proposal by President Chirac and Prime Minister Major, to examine ways to assist Central Asian republics, utilizing the TACIS programme, to fight transit in and production of drugs.

    Cooperation with transatlantic partners in these fields has also to be continued and, where appropriate, improved.

    The European Council confirms the priority it attaches to sustained and coordinated action in the fight against drugs making full and coherent use of all the instruments of the Union.

    It invites the Council to draw up by the end of 1997 a first assessment of measures undertaken, with a view to strengthening and supplementing them.

    1. Fight against organized crime

    The European Council underlines its absolute determination to fight organized crime and, to this end, stresses the need for a coherent and coordinated approach by the Union.

    The European Council welcomes the report made by the Presidency on stepping up the fight against organized crime and decides to create a high level group to draw up a comprehensive Action Plan containing specific recommendations, including realistic timetables for carrying out the work. The Group should examine the fight against organized crime in all its aspects on the clear understanding that it would refer any issues involving Treaty change to the Intergovernmental Conference which is addressing Treaty changes in this area as a priority. The high level group should complete its work by March/April 1997.

    In order to implement rapidly the measures proposed in the report made by the Presidency, the European Council asks the Council to reinforce its Secretariat, by setting up a team of specialized national experts and practitioners, seconded for a limited duration.

    As a practical step in combating international crime, the European Council urges the ratification at the earliest possible date of the Customs Information System, Fraud and Extradition Conventions and their Protocols, as well as, by the end of 1997, of the Europol Convention and its subsequent Protocol. It also highlights the importance of bringing to a rapid conclusion the convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.

    The European Council urges the Council and the Commission to take effective and coherent action to address the abuse of new communications technologies, including the Internet.

    1. Sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings

    The European Council expresses its abhorrence at the sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings and undertakes to take all necessary action to protect those most vulnerable in society. It welcomes the agreement on a joint action defining a common approach to offences against children and improving judicial cooperation. Other joint actions aimed at enhancing police cooperation by widening the competencies of the Europol Drugs Unit and creating centres of expertise in investigating such crimes were adopted. Community funds have been made available for fighting these odious crimes.

    The European Council calls on the Council and the Commission to implement actively these instruments and to consider necessary further action.

    1. Fight against terrorism

    The European Council condemns unreservedly all terrorist attacks and continues to pay close attention to the threat posed by terrorism both internally and externally. For this reason the EU is working closely with other international partners and international organizations to review and update measures already adopted against this threat and adopt, where necessary, new measures. For this reason the Member States reiterate their will to cooperate closely on the matter; the European Council emphasizes the need to do so.

    1. Racism and Xenophobia

    The European Council welcomes the progress made since its meeting in Florence and calls on the Council to complete its work with a view to the speedy establishment of a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia which will have to work in close cooperation with the Council of Europe.

    1. External frontiers

    The European Council draws again attention to the need to resolve speedily the remaining questions regarding the draft Convention on crossing by persons of the External Frontiers of Member States of the European Union.

    1. ENLARGEMENT

    The Commission informed the European Council on its progress on the opinions and other reports related to enlargement as requested of it at Madrid. The European Council welcomes the assurance given by the Commission that these documents as well as the communication on the future financial framework of the Union will be available immediately after the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference. It confirms the timetable for the enlargement process as set at its Madrid meeting. The European Council takes note of the Council’s report on the implementation of the pre­accession strategy in the second half of this year. It also notes the Commission’s endeavours to strengthen the present implementation of this strategy. Moreover it welcomes the Commission’s intention to present proposals for an overall reinforcement of the pre-accession strategy together with its opinions and other reports under preparation.

    VII. EXTERNAL ACTION BY THE UNION

    The European Council adopted the declarations on Former Yugoslavia and the Middle East Peace Process at annex.

    RUSSIA

    The European Union expresses its solidarity with the Russian people as they implement their historic choice in favour of democracy, the rule of law and a market economy. The European Council reiterates the Union’s readiness to assist the Russian Federation in meeting the difficult challenges ahead, notably through the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, the EU/Russia Action Plan and by bringing Russia as soon as possible into the WTO and other international fora.

    The European Council warmly welcomes President Yeltsin’s important decision to withdraw all Russian troops from Chechnya and the recent agreement between Chechen leaders and the Russian Prime Minister. It notes the intention to hold elections in Chechnya on 27 January 1997. The European Council expresses its continuing support for the important work of the OSCE Assistance Group in Chechnya.

    UKRAINE

    The European Council welcomes the adoption by the Council of the Action Plan for Ukraine which demonstrates the importance which the Union attaches to its relations with Ukraine and its desire to develop closer cooperation in the framework of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

    The European Council recalls its firm attachment to the implementation of the memorandum of understanding reached with Ukraine on the definitive closure of the Chernobyl nuclear power station by the year 2000. It welcomes the closure by the Ukrainian authorities of reactor number one as an important step in this direction.

    BELARUS

    The European Union is seriously concerned at developments in Belarus, in particular relating to the referendum on the new Constitution. The European Union wishes to see a Belarus committed to democratic principles, human rights and a market economy playing a full part in Europe. The European Council calls on the leadership of Belarus to re-establish full respect for internationally accepted democratic and constitutional principles and practices and hopes that the leadership will accept the Union’s proposal for a fact-finding mission. The absence of progress in these areas would have a negative impact on relations between Belarus and the European Union and on Union support for Belarus’s accession to the Council of Europe.

    COUNCIL OF EUROPE

    The European Council believes that the Council of Europe has a crucial role in upholding human rights standards and supporting pluralist democracy.

    It sees advantage in using to the fullest, in cooperation with other international institutions, the expertise and mechanisms of the Council of Europe to advance these objectives. The summit meeting of the Organization, in 1997, will provide a significant opportunity to review the progress made in these areas.

    REGIONAL COOPERATION IN EUROPE

    The European Council notes the wider range of regional activities in Europe reaching from the Arctic to the Black Sea. In this context, the European Council welcomes the Commission’s report on the Central European Initiative presented in response to its request at Florence. It notes that the Commission will submit regular reports to the Council on these regional initiatives.

    MEDITERRANEAN

    The European Council reaffirms the high priority it attaches to the European Union’s Mediterranean dimension and expresses satisfaction at the significant and balanced developments in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership during the year since the adoption of the Barcelona Declaration.

    In the political and security partnership, work on the implementation of the principles of the Barcelona Declaration will continue, notably through the action plan, towards the adoption of a Union-Mediterranean charter.

    TURKEY

    The European Council reaffirms the importance it attaches to the further development of the EU’s relations with Turkey in both the economic and political fields. It notes with regret, however, that certain serious issues remain to be resolved in the relationship. The European Council welcomes the Turkish Government’s stated intention to take measures to improve the human rights situation. In the context of closer partnership with the European Union it emphasizes the need for the observance of the highest standards of human rights.

    The European Council invites the Presidency to continue its efforts following the Council’s declaration of 15 July 1996 to promote an acceptable solution to the situation in the Aegean area in accordance with established international norms and to pursue contacts with the Turkish Government with a view to an early Association Council.

    The European Council urges Turkey to use its influence to contribute to a solution in Cyprus in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions.

    EU-US RELATIONS

    The European Council notes that the EU-US Summit in Washington on 16 December will be the first anniversary of the adoption at Madrid of the New Transatlantic Agenda and the Joint EU-US Action Plan and expects it to be another milestone in EU-US relations. It welcomes the qualitative improvement which this represents in principle as well as in practice over the past year.

    The European Council reaffirms the objectives which it shares with the US in promoting human rights, democratic values and fundamental freedoms in parts of the world where these are inadequately observed, but also its conviction that such objectives should be pursued by means other than unilateral action at the expense of close partners with shared values.

    The European Council reaffirms the essential contribution which close EU-US partnership can make to international stability, security and prosperity and the importance in this context of the Transatlantic Dialogue in deepening and widening the EU-US relationship through solid cooperation between them.

    EU-CANADA RELATIONS

    The European Council welcomes agreement on the text of a Joint Declaration and an Action Plan, which will further enhance cooperation between EU and Canada in pursuit of common objectives and on the basis of deeply-held shared values.

    GREAT LAKES

    The European Council expresses grave concern about the continuing violence in the Great Lakes Region, not only in Eastern Zaire but also in Burundi. It welcomes the return of large numbers of refugees, but underlines the need to facilitate the voluntary repatriation of the remaining refugees, and to initiate rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts. It recalls the considerable efforts undertaken by the EU to meet humanitarian needs. In the meantime, the continuing humanitarian emergency, particularly in Eastern Zaire, requires fast and decisive action by the international community. Underlining the need for a flexible approach in the light of the rapidly changing circumstances on the ground, the European Council agrees that the implications of these changes for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions concerning the establishment, for humanitarian purposes, of a temporary multinational force will need to be addressed rapidly. In this regard, the European Council restates the willingness of the European Union to contribute fully and urgently to these efforts, pursuant to the Joint Action of 22 November 1996, the associated Council Decision of the same date and the WEU Ministerial Declaration of 19 November 1996. It welcomes the Commission proposal for a strategic and comprehensive plan of action for EU assistance to the Great Lakes Region.

    The European Council welcomes the initiative of the regional leaders in seeking to resolve the problems in Eastern Zaire through dialogue. It hopes that, at the second Nairobi Summit of Heads of State of the Region on 16 December, they can build upon the principles already agreed by them, including the crucial importance of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Zaire, in pursuit of a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Recognizing the importance of the electoral process in terms of the stability of the region, it reiterates the commitment of the Union to play its part in support of the successful completion of that process in Zaire by means of the Joint Action adopted on 11 November 1996 and looks forward to the latter’s early and urgent implementation.

    The European Council reiterates its view that the problems of the region as a whole can only be resolved by political means. The European Union will, in particular through its Special Envoy, continue to support the efforts of the regional leaders and to encourage dialogue between the different parties to conflict in the region. The European Council reaffirms its support for the early convening of an international conference under the joint auspices of the UN and the Organization of African Unity in order to address within a global approach the root causes of the crisis and thus bring about a peaceful, durable and comprehensive resolution of the conflicts in the region.

    EAST TIMOR

    The European Council welcomes the initiatives within the European Union aimed at improving the situation, living conditions and human rights of the East Timorese people. It reaffirms its support for all efforts which can contribute to a fair, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution, which fully respects the interests and legitimate aspirations of the Timorese people in accordance with international law. It hopes that the talks under the auspices of the UN Secretary General will lead to substantial progress towards the resolution of the question of East Timor.

    CUBA

    The EU wishes to see progress towards a peaceful transition to pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba, as well as economic policies calculated to bring about a sustainable recovery and an improvement in the living standards of the Cuban people. The Common Position adopted by the Council on 2 December will be pursued through a result-oriented constructive dialogue. The EU will lend its support to progress towards democracy, including the possible negotiation of a cooperation agreement. Any agreement would, in accordance with EU practice, contain a suspension clause in the event of a serious breach of the human rights provisions.

    TRANSITION IN HONG KONG AND MACAO

    The European Council reiterated the European Union’s strong interest in the future peace and prosperity of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China to be created next July, and the European Union’s desire to do anything possible to contribute to a smooth transition. The European Union is committed to strong continuing relations with the SAR in the World Trade Organization and in all other matters where the SAR will enjoy autonomy under the Basic Law. The European Council underlined the European Union’s full support for the specific status of the SAR and its citizens in all respects, including their right to representative democratic institutions as already established The European Council requested the Commission to propose in due course during 1997 how best to ensure close economic cooperation.

    The European Council takes note of the positive way in which the transition process has been developing in Macao. It hopes that the implementation of the Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration signed in 1987 will continue to contribute to the progress and social stability of the territory with a view to a smooth transfer of government in December 1999. It also hopes for the continuation of the respect for the fundamental principles of the Joint Declaration beyond that date.

    WTO

    The European Council noted with satisfaction the outcome of the first regular bi-annual WTO Ministerial Conference which took place in Singapore on 9­13 December 1996 and at which the European Union demonstrated once again the importance it attaches to the multilateral trading system and the efficient operation of the WTO.

    The European Council expresses its satisfaction at the renewed impetus which the WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore has given to the liberalisation of world trade. It particularly welcomes the broadening of the WTO work programme to encompass issues which the European Union had identified as priorities. It also welcomes the breakthrough on trade in information technology products and urges the fullest possible participation by third country partners in the final agreement to be reached by 15 March 1997. The European Council also welcomes the continued momentum towards a successful conclusion of the negotiations on basic telecommunications in February 1997.

    The European Council welcomes the launch by the Commission of a new market access strategy and calls for enhanced and coordinated efforts by the Community and Member States to open up third country markets.

    With regard to the report on the evolution of the trade policies and preferential agreements of the Community, the European Council took note that the Council would finalize it in its February session with a view to presenting it at Amsterdam.

    VIII. SEATS OF OFFICES AND AGENCIES

    The European Council noted the progress which has been made in the implementation of its decision taken in Brussels in October 1993 on the location of Agencies and Offices. The Council endorsed the Commission’s decision of 10 December 1996 to arrange for the early transfer of the staff of the OICVP to Ireland initially and specifically thereafter to Grange, Co. Meath in premises to be made available at that location by the Irish authorities.

    The European Council urged that appropriate measures be taken by the different institutions to ensure that the required resources are made available to implement the Commission’s decision.

    The Council also notes the conclusions of the Agriculture Council of 18 November 1996 as regards staffing of the OICVP and urged that appropriate measures be taken by the different institutions to ensure that the required staffing resources are made available to enable the Union to discharge its supervisory responsibilities.

    Addendum

    The European Council has noted the following reports from the Presidency/Council:

    – Council report on achievements in the field of Justice and Home Affairs

    – Presidency report on stepping up the fight against organized crime

    – SEM 2000 (sound financial management): Council Conclusions and report of the personal Representatives Group

    The European Council also noted the following reports from the European Commission:

    1. Europe as an Economic Entity
    2. The impact and effectiveness of the single market
    3. Putting services to work
    4. Europe at the forefront of the global information society
    5. The first action plan for innovation in Europe
    6. Europe’s place in the world: fourth report of the Ciampi group
    7. Trans-European Networks
    8. Better Lawmaking (report on the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, on simplification and on consolidation)

     

  • Text of the Queen’s Speech – 23 October 1996

    Below is the text of the Queen’s Speech, held on 23rd October 1996.

    Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    The Duke of Edinburgh and I look forward to receiving the State Visits of His Excellency the President of Israel in February and of the President of Brazil in December next year. We also look forward to our visit to Canada in June and July and to our State Visits to Thailand later this month and to Pakistan and India in October next year, the fiftieth anniversary of their independence.

    National security continues to be of the highest importance. My Government will continue to play a major role in NATO’s adaptation and in decisions on its enlargement, and to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. The United Kingdom’s minimum nuclear deterrent will be maintained.

    Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a priority. Early provision will be made for the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. My Government will pursue negotiations on a Convention to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive purposes.

    In the European Union, my Government will work for an outcome to the Intergovernmental Conference which supports an outward-looking, economically liberal and flexible Union based on a partnership of nations. They will promote policies designed to improve the Union’s competitiveness and economic well-being. They will work towards the opening of accession negotiations with countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

    My Government will promote the further global liberalisation of trade, in particular at the Ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation, and will continue to work for transatlantic free trade in this context.

    My Government will continue actively to support peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, encouraging full compliance with the Peace Agreement and promoting reconciliation between the former warring parties.

    Support will continue for the search for a durable peace in the Middle East.

    My Government will continue to work for a successful transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1997. They will work on behalf of its people to preserve their way of life and to promote the territory’s continued stability and prosperity, founded on a high degree of autonomy and the rule of law.

    Preparations will be made for the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government to be held in Edinburgh in October 1997, and for the second Asia-Europe Meeting in London in 1998.

    Support for the United Nations remains a priority. My Government will continue to work for a United Nations that is more effective, efficient and responsive to the needs of its Member States.

    The fight against terrorism, organised crime and drug misuse and trafficking will remain a priority as will action to protect and improve the environment.

    My Government will continue to promote respect for human rights and the international rule of law.

    A substantial aid programme will be maintained to help improve the quality of life in poorer countries, by contributing to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering.

    In Northern Ireland, my Government’s priority will be to maintain progress towards peace, prosperity and reconciliation, based on a comprehensive political settlement commanding widespread support. They stand ready to introduce legislation to provide for the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives in Northern Ireland. They will maintain close and friendly relations with the Republic of Ireland.

    Members of the House of Commons,

    Estimates for the public service will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    My Government will continue with firm financial policies designed to support sustained economic growth and rising prosperity, while maintaining low inflation. Fiscal policy will continue to be set to bring the public sector borrowing requirement back towards balance over the medium term. My Government will reduce further the share of national income taken by the public sector. They will continue to promote enterprise and further improve the performance of the economy with the aim of creating the strongest industrial economy in Western Europe in the medium term and doubling living standards over the next twenty-five years. They will promote fewer, better and simpler regulations to reduce unnecessary burdens on business.

    My Government will continue to support competitiveness through advancing knowledge, improving educational and skill levels and promoting a flexible, efficient labour market. Legislation will be introduced to widen choice and diversity, improve discipline and raise standards in schools.

    A Bill will be introduced to reform the sentencing and supervision of serious, dangerous and persistent offenders so as to provide greater protection for the public. Legislation will be introduced to support the fight against organised crime, including establishing a National Crime Squad. A Bill will be introduced to strengthen controls on the ownership of firearms.

    Legislation will be brought forward to strengthen the powers to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping. A Bill will again be brought before you to authorise the construction and operation of a high speed rail link between London and the Channel Tunnel.

    Legislation will be introduced to improve and develop primary health care services. A Bill will be brought forward to combat social security fraud.

    Legislation will be introduced to implement proposals contained in the English and Welsh Rural White Papers in relation to parish and community councils and to provide rate relief for small village shops.

    In Scotland legislation will be introduced to abolish automatic early release from prison and to make other changes in the criminal justice system to improve public protection. A Bill will be brought forward to enable the transfer of publicly-owned crofting estates to crofting trusts.

    My Government will introduce legislation to enable reform of the procedures of the civil courts, and other measures of law reform.

    Other measures will be laid before you.

    My Government will also publish Bills in draft for consultation on the introduction of voluntary identity cards and on measures to help people make better provision for their long term care needs in old age.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

    I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 March 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

     

    Far East (Visit)

    Mr. John Townend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the far east.

    The Prime Minister: I attended the inaugural Asia-Europe summit meeting in Bangkok on 29 February to 2 March together with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This summit, for the first time, brought together the leaders of Thailand, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, China, the 15 member states of the European Union and the President of the European Commission. I warmly welcomed the opportunity it offered to reinforce the relations between Europe and East Asia, politically and economically two of the world’s three most important regions.

    The informal discussions covered a wide range of political and economic issues. The participants agreed on the need to deepen the political dialogue between Asia and Europe, to increase co-operation over arms control, human resource development, environmental protection and the fight against poverty, drugs terrorism and other international crime.

    On economic matters, there was common ground over the benefits of strengthening trade and investment flows between Asia and Europe in both direction. The meeting agreed to work for the further liberalisation of trade and for the success of the World Trade Organisation. It also recognised that intensified exchanges of science and technology, especially in sectors such as agriculture, information and technology, energy and transport, were important for extending the economic links between the two regions. Finally, there was agreement on the value of closer people-to-people contacts, especially among younger generations.

    The meeting set in hand an ambitious programme of follow-up work, including preparations for the first ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Singapore in December, work on improving conditions for the flow of investment between the two regions, the establishment of a business forum and promotion of reform of the United Nations including the EU initiative on financial reform.

    The meeting accepted the United Kingdom’s offer to host the second summit which will be held during our presidency of the EU in the first half of 1998. This is a clear signal of our commitment to developing relations with Asia and our determination to play a leading role in the evolving relationship between the two regions. Hong Kong During my visit to Hong Kong between 2 and 4 March, I had the opportunity to hear the concerns of a wide range of the Hong Kong community about their future. I was able to reassure them that:

    (i) Britain has a long-term commitment to Hong Kong which will last well beyond the transfer of sovereignty on 1 July 1997;

    (ii) in the event of a breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, we would pursue every avenue open to us and mobilise the international community;

    (iii) holders of the Hong Kong special administrative region passport would not be required to obtain visas for visits to Britain after 30 June 1997;

    (iv) we would guarantee admission to Britain for any member of the non-Chinese ethnic minority community with solely British nationality who came under pressure to leave Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty; and

    (v) we would support a private Member’s Bill to grant British citizenship to the wives and widows of the ex-service men from Hong Kong who fought for Britain in the war.

    I also had the opportunity to visit several parts of the territory, including the new airport and the extension to the convention and exhibition centre, where development is being pursued to ensure Hong Kong’s continuing success. Korea is an important trading partner: our exports increased by 44 per cent. in 1995 to more than £1.5 billion, and we have attracted more than 40 per cent. of all Korean inward investment in Europe. The prospects for further growth in these areas are good.

    I had a meeting with President Kim Young Sam, our third in 12 months, at which we discussed ways to increase the co-operation between our countries, particularly in trade and investment. I also met the leaders of the major Korean conglomerates. I encouraged them to consider further inward investment here by assuring them of the major benefits of doing so. During my visit, three new Korean investments worth £2.5 million were announced, bringing the number of Korean companies in the UK to 19. Four contracts were signed by British companies for joint ventures valued at £90 million, including a co-operation agreement between British

    Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and Hanjung for the building of spent fuel storage casks in a market expected to grow from £35 million to £2 billion.

     

    Princess of Wales

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions or communications Her Majesty’s Government have had since the beginning of the current year with the Governments of those other Commonwealth countries whose Head of State is Her Majesty the Queen, about the constitutional future and status of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: None.

     

    Duchy of Cornwall (Profits)

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if the income and profits of the Duchy of Cornwall are private and personal to the Prince of Wales.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The capital assets of the Duchy of Cornwall are inalienable, and the income from capital disposals must be reinvested in new capital assets. The Prince of Wales is personally entitled to the net income from the revenue account of the Duchy of Cornwall, from which he meets both public and private expenditure for himself, the Princess and their family.

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister at what time or stage on 28 February he was advised that Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales was issuing a statement announcing her intention to divorce His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I was informed of the statement after it was issued.

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what provisions exist for the Princess of Wales to renounce the rank and the title of Her Royal Highness.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The use of the style lies ultimately in the Queen’s gift, although the wishes of the princess would be taken into consideration.

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what future funding arrangements from public funds are being made to facilitate HRH the Princess of Wales continuing her public duties subsequent to divorce.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: Matters relating to the divorce of the Prince and Princess of Wales and the princess’s future role are under discussion.

     

    Civil Servants (Conduct)

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if it is his policy that civil servants criticised in the Scott report shall be disciplined.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 March 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 6 March, Official Report, column 252.

     

    EU Directives

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the EU directives which have been gold plated when transcribed into United Kingdom law in the past five years.

    The Prime Minister: The Government’s policy is not to add unnecessary burdens on business when implementing EC directives in the UK. Departments keep existing legislation under review in the light of this policy.

     

    “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”

    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to issue a revised version of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I will revise and reissue “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” as and when appropriate.

     

    Civil Servants (Company Directors)

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each (a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 March 1996]: For these purposes, my office forms part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 6 March, Official Report, columns 250-51.

  • Mr Major’s Hong Kong Press Conference – 4 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference, held in Hong Kong, on Monday 4th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t propose to say a great deal at the outset of this press conference. I have had opportunities elsewhere on this visit to say what I have to say, most noticeably at lunchtime, and I daresay most of you have had the opportunity of seeing that before deciding what questions to ask this afternoon.

    Let me just simply say how much I have enjoyed this particular visit to Hong Kong, it is over four years since last I was here. The speed of change here never ceases to amaze me. But I am delighted to have been here again and on this occasion have enjoyed the visit as much as I always do.

    We have had a very lively debate on one or two issues over the last couple of days. I enjoyed my meetings with EXCO and LEGCO this morning. And I just want to say one or two general things about the present circumstance and the future.

    The first thing I would like to say is just to add to a point I know that the Governor has made on many occasions in the past, and that is just to express my admiration for the way in which the civil service has coped with matters here in Hong Kong over the last few years. I think Hong Kong are extremely lucky in the quality of their civil service, in the apolitical nature of their civil service, and I think that is something that is well understood here and well appreciated also in London.

    Let me say a word or two about the natural fears that I think many people may have about the transition. There are some very important issues that I know are of concern to people still in Hong Kong: the question of the future of LEGCO – whether the through-train arrives at its destination or whether there is a stop in 1997, the question of the Bill of Rights. Both of those I touched upon earlier and on earlier occasions, but they may well come up again this afternoon.

    When people worry perhaps about those problems, I wonder if I might just remind everybody of the problems in the past that seemed insoluble and yet now are behind us, they have been solved – the Court of Final Appeal, airport contracts – a range of other things in the past that were a matter of huge concern at the time but where satisfactory solutions were in the end actually found.

    We are going to have to be both persistent and persuasive in our negotiations with China on the problems that remain. We will be so in private and we will express, wherever it seems to be of advantage to Hong Kong for us to do so, our views on those matters in public as well. What I do want to reiterate as an assurance to Hong Kong is that Britain’s commitment to Hong Kong, and its future, is not something that is dribbling away with the 450 or so days that remain. There is a commitment that is very deep, very long-standing, and although the legal position may change in June 1997, the practical commitment will not change, the moral imperative will not change, and Britain’s interest in Hong Kong, affection for Hong Kong and trade and commercial relationships with Hong Kong will continue in the future, as they have done in the past.

    On the occasions I have been able to speak publicly on this trip I have tried to set out, most obviously in the speech at lunchtime today, some reassurance on five points. I will just remind you of them without going through them at any length I think again:

    – firstly, our long-term commitment to Hong Kong, both moral and economic;

    – secondly, our pledge to pursue every avenue that is open to us if there is to be a breach of the Joint Declaration, including using Britain’s influence with the international community to ensure that the agreements that were signed are the agreements that are met;

    – thirdly, the announcement I made earlier today about visa-free access;

    – fourthly, the extra guarantee to the ethnic minorities – the relatively small number of people of Indian and Pakistani ethnic extraction who fear particular difficulties after 1997;

    – and fifthly, the commitment I was able to make today to effectively ensure British citizenship for war widows and wives.

    Those were the five principal points I have made during this trip.

    The next 400 – 500 days are self-evidently going to be a testing time for Hong Kong. Hong Kong has shown its courage and its persistence on many occasions in the past. It will need to do so again over the next 500 days or so. I have no doubt that it will do so. And neither do I have any doubt, if he will permit me to say so, that in the Governor Hong Kong could not have a better representative of Hong Kong’ s views, both with London and with China and with other countries. So I think you will remain in very good hands and the Governor will continue to have the direct and immediate access to London that he has always enjoyed.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION (South China Morning Post):

    You just spoke firmly and clearly of the British commitment to Hong Kong. But can you also be equally firm and clear that it is the UK government’ s view that the Chinese plan to set up a provisional Legislature and dilute the Bill of Rights is a breach of the Joint Declaration?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I touched upon those points earlier, and I reiterate them again today. I don’t have any doubt at all in my mind that it would be a very grave mistake were LEGCO not to proceed right to the end of their natural elected life. I don’t think we could, or would, understand if LEGCO’s life were cut in half in 1997, and neither do I believe the world at large would understand that. There is now an elective democracy in Hong Kong. The present LEGCO were elected with a very substantial popular vote, they were elected to do a particular job and I believe they should be permitted to see that job through to its conclusion. Those points have long been put privately to the Chinese leaders, I have made the point entirely publicly, we will do all we can to persuade China that that is the right way to proceed, both in China’s interest, for the world would not understand anything else were it to happen in 1997, and also in the interest of people in Hong Kong.

    There are of course allied matters on human rights and on the Bill of Rights, and I won’t reiterate what I said at lunchtime, I think it is probably quite clear.

    QUESTION (Sally Blythe, Eastern Express):

    The guarantees which you gave today to the ethnic minorities, do they actually differ from earlier guarantees which were given by Sir Geoffrey Howe during parliamentary debates about 10 years ago I think when he said that the British government would look favourably upon any application by any of the ethnic minorities here so that they could enter Britain and the British government would look favourably upon that. How does your guarantee today differ from that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The guarantee today is more specific and a good deal harder. What was said in the past that we would look favourably upon those applications, that doesn’t necessarily mean in given circumstances that that would be granted in any sense. What I am saying today is that where those people have a well-founded fear that it is necessary for them to leave Hong Kong, we won’t just look favourably upon their application, what I have offered them in those circumstances is a cast-iron guarantee that they will be able to come to the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION:

    Why not give them British passports then?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    So it is a good deal firmer than anything we have seen in the past. I am not in a position to go further than that.

    QUESTION:

    We just heard that we will have visa-free for the SAR passport holders. At present officially the British passport holder, the Hong Kong ones, will not need to have a visa to land in Britain. But your government and the authorities in Hong Kong advise the people of Hong Kong to take a visa first. So will you apply the same sort of policy towards the SAR passport?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In future people with an SAR passport certainly will not need a visa when they are coming to the United Kingdom, that is not a short term position, that is the position that I announced today. That was not the position before today, it is the position after today. I think it will make a material difference, a beneficial difference, to many people who visit the United Kingdom from Hong Kong. Nobody should sniff around and try and find something in the undergrowth that is not as it appears on the surface. What I said this morning should be taken at its face value – visas will not be required by holders of an SAR passport visiting the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION:

    There are many persons and organisations in Hong Kong who have been promoting the democratic movement of China, but you have not promised to give minorities to enter the UK after 1997, what about that group after 1997 because they have every opportunity to be oppressed by the Chinese government?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think if you look at the commitments we have got in the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration, I know people are concerned and I understand the concern that people will have over the changes that are to come. If I may say so, although we have had differences with China from time to time over the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, they have in essence been differences of interpretation over what was meant by the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. And I think it is wise to understand that it has been differences of interpretation, not what both sides could clearly see was a breach of the Joint Declaration, that have been the points at issue. I understand the concerns that people fear about persecution, I have to say I think those fears are greatly overdone. Where we have seen a potential risk, we have acted.

    What I would say more generally on the subject is simply this. Those sort of fears sometimes arise because people have the impression that after 1997 in some curious way Hong Kong is going to be entirely on its own. But if there is an open city anywhere in the world upon whom the eyes of the world are constantly fixed, if there is a more open city than Hong Kong, I cannot myself imagine where that city might be. This is the gateway for the whole of Asia, the trade, commercial gateway for the whole of Asia, it is very much in the interests of Hong Kong that it remains that way, but more relevantly from the point of view of your question, it is very much in the interests of China that it remains that way. And I think people often imagine that the sheer impact of the world looking at Hong Kong, and the sheer impact of the nature of Hong Kong, is not going to have any effect upon the future after the end of June 1997. I do not myself believe that and I think the fears that you raise are unfounded.

    QUESTION (Francis Moriatty, Radio and TV Hong Kong):

    Prime Minister, a subject not on your list of five. You say Hong Kong is not alone but when Mr. Rifkind was here he suggested that when it came to solving the boat people question it was a Hong Kong question.

    If I can just for a moment go back to your last press conference in Hong Kong in 1991 in which you said: “We are discussing regularly – by “we” I mean the British Government and the UK Government.” You go on several times to talk about “we” and “us’ so the question is where, when it comes to the Vietnamese boat people, does the British responsibility end and the Hong Kong responsibility begin?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me tell you exactly what is happening. When I was in Bangkok last week, I saw the Vietnamese prime minister to discuss the specific problem of the Vietnamese boat people. If I can take a little bit of history to that, it was very soon after my visit in 1991 that activity on the boat people began to accelerate; there was clearly a need for decisions to be taken, I agreed with that, the Governor agreed with that, progress began to be made. Progress was proceeding very satisfactorily with volunteers, non-refugees, returning back to Vietnam until there was what I think I might Delphically call “an external intercession from across the water” and I do not mean by that the United Kingdom.

    I spoke to the Vietnamese prime minister to see how we can accelerate this process. The objective would be to deal with the problem entirely before the end of June 1997, that is the objective. Satisfying that objective is not wholly in British hands but that is the objective that I seek. With that in mind, I agreed with the Vietnamese prime minister that I would send British officials immediately from London to Vietnam to discuss how we might re-accelerate this programme.

    The reason I am sending officials first is that I shall be sending a Foreign Office minister to Vietnam in April and I want the preliminary ground-clearing work done in advance of that so that we may deal compassionately, sensitively but speedily and comprehensively with the problem of the non-refugees who are still here in Hong Kong in camps.

    I do see a role for the British Government, we played a role before. I see a role for the British Government, the Hong Kong Government and the Vietnamese Government; I do not see quite such a role for individuals elsewhere but for those three groups I do see a role and we are acting to see if we can get this programme moving again satisfactorily.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITV):

    Prime Minister, in your speech, you mentioned in passing that if necessary you would be prepared to take legal action if China is in breach of the Joint Declaration. Will you underline that again but on, the other hand, do you not think that that is likely to anger Beijing as much as it might reassure those people here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are not in the business of angering anyone. We have had significant discussions and negotiations with the Chinese and that will continue to be the position. We are not in the business of angering anyone but neither are we in the business of not making clear what the options are in certain circumstances and I think it is right that everybody should know what the options are that might conceivably be pursued by the British Government were it necessary to do so and I stress that last point, were it necessary to do so.

    What we have said is that if there were breaches of the Joint Declaration we, the British Government, would have a duty to pursue every legal and other avenue available to us and what I reaffirmed at lunchtime today is that that is precisely what we would do; we would pursue every legal and other avenue open to us and I hope that will be a clear reassurance to people who fear that there can with impunity be a breach of the Joint Declaration with no response.

    QUESTION:

    Does that mean that you are going to sue China in the International Court if China is going to dismantle LEGCO?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set out precisely what I meant, I am not going to put further flesh on it. What I said was perfectly clear. We will pursue every legal and other avenue available to us but I am not going to sit down and set out in each individual circumstance precisely how we would deal with it. I don’t think that would be productive and what I wish to do is to try and ensure that the circumstance doesn’t arise in the first place. By “circumstance” I mean a breach of the Joint Declaration but those options are open to us should we need them.

    QUESTION (Don MacIntyre):

    Prime Minister, can I return to the ethnic minority question for a moment? Who will decide whether these people are under pressure to leave Hong Kong? Will the burden of the proof be as it were on the individual as in asylum cases?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I considered whether we should actually set down a specific series of circumstances that would be met. We could do that and we will consider in the period between now and June 1997 whether that might be an appropriate way to deal with the problem. At this moment I am not convinced that it is, there are many alternative scenarios that may arise.

    One thing is certain: these people that we are talking about will not wish to leave Hong Kong of their own volition unless it is absolutely necessary for them to do so; they have their lives here, their businesses here, their interests here, their families here. Every indication we have is that they will wish to stay in Hong Kong if they possibly can but if circumstances arise where it is inappropriate for them to remain in Hong Kong, I think that will be apparent. It is a little like designing an elephant, you are not quite sure where to start the design but by golly you know when you see it and I think it is probably wise to leave it upon that basis because that gives the greatest degree of flexibility which I would anticipate we would exercise benevolently, if there were a risk, to deal with the relatively small number of people who may face this problem. We could, as I say, identify specific sets of circumstances where we would act but without further discussion and consideration, I am not convinced that would particularly be in the interests of the people concerned.

    QUESTION (Washington Post):

    Do you think there is something that China could be doing right now to help calm some of the anxieties, for example talking to the elected Democratic Party officials and talking to the Government here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that would be very helpful, yes, I think they could and I very much hope that they will.

    If I may return to the point I made earlier, over the last two or three years many issues that looked as though they were going to provoke huge dissent and may be unbrokerable, between Britain, Hong Kong and China have now been solved so I think we may well be able to solve some of those matters that so much concern people at present but yes, self-evidently it would help if there were a dialogue with LEGCO and a further and more comprehensive dialogue with the Governor and I would hope there will be such a dialogue.

    QUESTION:

    How much have you raised in the past few days for your party in Hong Kong?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is not what I came here for, not what I have done. I didn’t come here for that purpose, I haven’t discussed that purpose, it has not been on my agenda neither crossed my mind nor has it crossed my lips. The answer is that is not why I was here. Was that clear enough?

    GOVERNOR PATTEN:

    But the bet that Martin Lee in the Legislative Council had with Malcolm Rifkind that Britain wouldn’t do anything about visa-free access has been handed over.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Governor is holding that and I will take it back to the Foreign Secretary who is a Scot, has won his bet and will receive his winnings.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    Prime Minister, how would you respond to critics at home in Britain and in your own party, some perhaps in your own Cabinet, who are suggesting that the visa-free access for SAR passport holders could be abused by potential political asylum-seekers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe it would have been honourable for us not to act as we have and I know no-one in my Cabinet who is going to dissent from that view because my Cabinet has approved that view.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you have just announced a good deal for the Hong Kong people and I think most of them welcome that but unfortunately there were Hong Kong people who happen to be journalists who were not welcomed by mainland China, they just took away their re-entry permits so can you guarantee to us, Mr. Prime Minister, after 1997 that those with permanent residence in Hong Kong can come back to Hong Kong? Did you get any guarantee from China that they can come back to Hong Kong after 1997?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not quite sure of the facts of this particular case, I don’t know where these journalists might be at the moment. I am always very protective of the interests of journalists as the travelling party with me from the United Kingdom will confirm but I don’t know the background to this. If it seems as though there is some malpractice of some sort, clearly we would examine it and do what we could to help but without having the details of the particular case I would like to restrict my comment to that. I will make enquiries about it; if you will give the details to the Governor, I will look into it.

    QUESTION (Paul Harrington, Agence France Press):

    We are all aware, Prime Minister, of the political obstructions to granting more British passports to Hong Kong people but you mentioned the moral imperative that. Britain also had. Do you think that Hong Kong has got everything it deserves from Britain in this regard?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have tried to deal fairly with Hong Kong over the years but the underlying premise of your question seemed to me to be that one is coming to the end of a period in which Britain will have any interest in Hong Kong. That emphatically is not the case. The Governor has been here representing as well as I think anyone could have done the interests of Hong Kong over recent years. Going back even earlier, the negotiation of the Joint Declaration was essential and the determination of Basic Law was essential in the interests of Hong Kong; it was essential that a rule of law continues and I have been here to try and assist with some of the problems that Hong Kong has so I believe yes, we have dealt fairly, honestly and openly with Hong Kong and we will continue to do so both in the short term and the long term.

    QUESTION:

    You announced with a great flourish the visa-free access decision and yet we all know that that could be revoked within a matter of days if for example the question raised by a British colleague about abuses comes up so shouldn’t you have offered some greater guarantee that that visa-free travel requirement can somehow be maintained? What is to stop the British Government from revoking it the moment some abuse is discovered?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t see why we would be likely to do that. I didn’t have to offer visa-free access now. I did so because I think it is in the interests of Hong Kong that we do so and I think it is in the interests of the United Kingdom that we do so for a raft of reasons as well so I don’t anticipate a short-term reversal of this.

    We have visa-free access for other countries. It would be equally true of you to say to me that we could reverse visa-free access for all those other countries but we have had visa-free access for them for years, it hasn’t been reversed.

    This is not an offer made in bad faith, this is an offer made in good faith and it is an offer that is going to be maintained. All visa-free access around the world is upon that basis and that is the basis upon which I have announced it today. There is no need and no justification for people to poke around in the undergrowth of this statement to see if there is some trick underlying it – there is no trick.

    QUESTION (The Sun):

    Prime Minister, a domestic question but one which I think may be of interest in this Crown territory. A number of MPs back home have expressed concern about the royal family including Conservative MPs and including one Minister of the Crown who has asked for a debate on the royal family and the future of the royal family. Are you prepared to have one?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have heard no such comments myself and I am disinclined to comment on domestic matters when I am so far away without having heard the domestic debate. I will happily respond to that point when I am back in the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION (The Associated Press):

    Prime Minister, could just for the record explain to us whether in your opinion disbanding LEGCO would equal a breach of the Joint Declaration?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have said that, I said that earlier.

    SAME MAN:

    Not clearly though so that we know, would disbanding LEGCO equal a breach of the Joint Declaration in your view?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We believe that the Joint Declaration shouldn’t be changed and it is partly for that reason that we have been arguing that LEGCO needs to go right the way through and I made clear the damage that we believe would be done if LEGCO were to be disbanded, damage not just to Hong Kong though certainly to Hong Kong but also to China and that is a point we have made repeatedly to China and will continue to make to China.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Hong Kong – 4 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech given in Hong Kong at the British Chamber of Commerce and the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce on Monday 4th March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Chairman, Mr Governor, Ladies and Gentlemen. I am delighted to have the opportunity of being back here in Hong Kong. It is now just over a quarter of a century since I first came here, working in that occasion for the Chartered Bank. I had arrived to carry out an inspection or two and you can recall how popular I might have been.

    Hong Kong of course has changed very greatly since my first visit. In fact, to be frank, it has changed quite a bit in the four and a half years since I was last here. But not I think changed for the worst. The doomsters, the gloomsters, always with us in this part of the world and elsewhere, have been proved wrong again and again. There have been arguments certainly, arguments about principles certainly, arguments about things that mattered, of course, arguments but no disasters.

    Later on I shall have some announcements to make about the future. But before I turn to those, let me just spend a moment or two on what has actually happened. Hong Kong has become the world’s eighth largest trading economy, up from 10th four years ago; your foreign exchange reserves have risen by 60 percent, from 29 billion US dollars to around 52 billion, they are now the second highest per head anywhere in the world; your gross domestic product has gone up by a quarter, it now corresponds to over one-fifth of China’s GDP, a truly astonishing achievement for a territory with a population of 6 million at a time of uncertainty; your spending on public services has gone up by 75 percent on education, by 99 percent on health, but because you have grown overall and restrained expenditure elsewhere, expenditure as a proportion of your income has remained about 16 percent of GDP – in European terms an almost unimaginable statistic; taxes meanwhile have been cut, cut, cut, cut and cut again, not as far enough clearly as some of you would have wished, but I can tell you I would happily defend a 15 percent rate of income tax back home. Your top rate of salaries tax, that infamous 15 percent, now has to be paid by only 2 percent of the working population, though I do appreciate that many of that 2 percent will be present here on this occasion.

    And when you just have a look at some of those indications of what has happened in Hong Kong, it is no wonder it has become an even more international city. Over 200 more regional headquarters than in 1991, as well, as 11,000 more Britons, 11,000 more Americans and almost 9,000 more Japanese.

    There have been other visible signs of progress as well. The last time I came here I had just returned from Peking where I signed the Memorandum of Understanding for the airport. There was no West Kowloon reclamation, no new airport, no Tsing Ma Bridge – I saw both of them just yesterday; no convention centre extension, a great building, a building which will quite literally become one of the best known buildings anywhere in the world; no British Consulate General which is going to be, by some measure, our biggest Consular post in the world, a symbol of Britain’s commitment to the future of Hong Kong.

    So Hong Kong, as so often in its history, has defied the pessimistic smart Alecs. Indeed it has defied the odds. You have shown that it is possible to prosper while standing up vigorously for your way of life, the way of life, the freedoms and values that generate the prosperity that you can see right across Hong Kong.

    People often ask: what can we learn from Hong Kong? The best answer is go to Hong Kong and see for yourself, see the energy, the dynamism, the sheer guts in business enterprise, the determination to make the best of life however unpromising it may sometimes look, to think positive and to act positive. And those are some of the reasons why Hong Kong packs such a big punch in Asia and right around the world.

    Last week I attended a meeting of European and Asian Heads of Government in Bangkok, the first meeting of its kind, an initiative long overdue and one I welcomed with enthusiasm. There are very few foreign policy questions that matter more today than the relationship between West and East, between Europe and Asia. Hong Kong is at the heart of the economic relationship between the two. Annual two-way trade is worth 40 billion US dollars. Literally thousands of European firms are based here, doing business not only in Hong Kong but in the whole region. And what a remarkable region it is, north to China and Japan, south to Australia, West as far as India.

    Europe has no better market and no better business base in the whole of this vast and booming region. And that is why Hong Kong needs to be involved in any economic follow-up to the Heads of Government meeting in Bangkok last week. Hong Kong of course is already a member of APEC and the World Trade Organisation.

    And Britain occupies a special position in this relationship, and I am not talking here just about the historical link, vital though that is, I am talking about something a good deal broader than that. Hong Kong is the Europeans’ first choice as a base to do business with Asia. Across the globe the United Kingdom is the Asians’ first choice as a base to do business with Europe, Asian banks in London, European banks in Hong Kong. Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese and Hong Kong investment in Britain exceeds Asian investment in the whole of the rest of Europe added together. European, especially British investment, in Hong Kong far exceeds other external investment in the territory. This is partly a product of history, indeed everything is partly a product of history, but it is very much also a product of present circumstances of hard-headed calculations about the future.

    Asian businessmen naturally wish to increase their stake in the world’s largest market – Europe – and they have calculated that much the best gateway is the United Kingdom. And they come to Britain because we share a common belief in enterprise. They like our relatively low taxes, not as low as yours of course, but Britain now enjoys the lowest tax burden of any major European economy and when possible we intend to get them lower still. They like our low inflation, Britain is enjoying the longest period of low inflation it seems for over 50 years. They like our commitment to free trade and fair competition. They like being treated on exactly the same basis as domestic investors. And they like a country that has resisted Europe in burdening employers with extra costs. In Britain, for every 100 pounds spent on wages, an employer has to add an extra 18 pounds for non-wage costs, 18 pounds in the UK but an extra 32 pounds in Germany, 34 pounds in Spain, 41 pounds in France and 44 pounds in Italy. So no wonder Britain remains the first choice for foreign investors coming to Europe – low taxes, low inflation, low costs.

    My aim is to turn Britain into the enterprise centre of Europe, an economy that rewards get up and go. Now that may sound familiar to you. We seek those virtues, you have them here in Hong Kong, they are the economic virtues of Hong Kong. And just as I would like Britain to be the enterprise centre of Europe, I see Hong Kong as the enterprise centre of Asia, the channel for European trade and investment into the huge markets of China and Asia.

    Overseas investors flock here for exactly the same reasons. And they come here because underpinning all these policies, Hong Kong has the most important legacy that Britain has given to its former colonies across the globe – the rule of law. You are all here, and your businesses and your families have thrived here precisely because of the rules of law. You have been able to enjoy living here, without interference from government, without harassment from the police, with a confidence that a contract once signed is a real contract, not just the beginning of year upon year of negotiation, with confidence in a fair and transparent legal process in which no-one is above the law, with confidence that the tendering process is fair and that all your companies can compete in an open market according to the same rules, and with confidence that there is that free flow of information, uncensored and unfiltered which is so vital to market decisions. You have benefited too from the work of the truly exceptionally dedicated civil servants of Hong Kong who set such high standards of administrative ability and can-do spirit.

    The rule of law in Hong Kong, the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong, the free flow of information, all that has been crucial to the development of Hong Kong as the pre-eminent business centre of this region. Who doubts, who seriously doubts that if Hong Kong had not developed its laws and had not preserved its rights and its freedoms, its success as a world centre for business would be far, far less than it is today?

    Twelve years ago the Chinese government clearly recognised these important facts of life when they undertook, in the Joint Declaration, to maintain Hong Kong’s laws, its rights, its freedoms and the application here of the International Human Rights Covenants. Why did they do that? It was because they saw that it was in their Chinese interests that Hong Kong should continue to thrive and develop as an international business centre. They knew that it was in this role that Hong Kong could best contribute to the spectacular modernisation of China. And they saw, wisely, that Hong Kong’s formula for success was one that included as vital ingredients, not optional extras, the rights and freedoms that the people and the businessmen based here had been guaranteed for years under the law.

    We have been working with China in order to achieve a successful transition incorporating these elements. The road has not been smooth but we have kept at it so far, and we will keep at it in future. The Chinese Foreign Minister’s visit to London in October last year, and the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Peking in January, allowed detailed and businesslike discussions on all aspects of the transition. My own meeting with Premier Li Peng last week has confirmed our commitment to this process. Our consistent aim has been to forge agreements which are clearly in the interests of Hong Kong and which will ensure the continuity of Hong Kong’s systems and Hong Kong’s institutions.

    There is still much to do, but a good deal has been achieved since the Joint Declaration of 1984 agreements on Hong Kong’s membership of international bodies like the World Trade Organisation; on the Court of Final Appeal; on the future of defence lands; on the network of international treaties applying to Hong Kong; on agreements that the pessimists said at the time could not be done, and much else besides. So the groundwork has been laid for the final phase of the transition, for the final push.

    The overriding priority in this period of the transition must be to maintain the rule of law and ensure that it commands the confidence of the local community and the international community after 1997. That has been the number one item on Chris Patten’s agenda for the last three and a half years. It is the number one item on the British government’s Hong Kong agenda over the next year and a half. If the rule of law does not rule the market, you enter it only with the greatest of caution, because you never know whether your contract will stick, whether your competitor has an inside track that you cannot hope to compete with, or even whether you will find yourself arbitrarily detained in a commercial dispute. But if you know that the market is ruled by law, you can commit yourself to it whole-heartedly. It is why we believe, and will continue to believe, that the voice of the people of Hong Kong, plainly heard in free and fair elections in 1994 and 1995 must be respected. We didn’t suddenly dream up that proposition by ourselves, it was a central feature of the Joint Declaration, agreed by Britain, agreed by China as the necessary underpinning for the confidence of the people of Hong Kong in the maintenance of their way of life.

    We are quite clear that electoral arrangements, passed by the Legislative Council in 1994, were and are wholly compatible with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. Those elected by the people of Hong Kong, in record numbers, should be allowed to serve their full four year term. That is what Hong Kong people wish to see, that is what the world would wish to see, that I am convinced would also be in China’s, as well as Hong Kong’s best interests.

    We have insisted too, therefore, that the laws of Hong Kong should not be changed by decree in 1997, that the human rights of Hong Kong people must continue to be protected in every respect, as they are now, including the obligation to report under the international covenants, and that the interests of all who live, work and invest in Hong Kong will be given equal treatment under the law after 1997 as they are today.

    We have put these arguments, arguments both of principle and of sensible practice at the highest levels to the Chinese leadership. Malcolm Rifkind did so in Peking in January, I did so with Premier Li Peng last week. In response he confirmed China’s commitment to key elements of the Joint Declaration, but we reached no agreement on LEGCO or on the Bill of Rights. We did not agree to disagree, we just disagreed.

    We are not going to leave it there. We are not going to go on saying in public and private something we don’t believe, we will say only what we do believe. We do not, and we will not, simply lie down and accept what we are told.

    Let me reiterate what Malcolm Rifkind said to LEGCO in January:

    If there were any suggestion of a breach of the Joint Declaration, we would have a duty to pursue every legal and other avenue available to us but standing up for Hong Kong way of life isn’t only a job for British ministers. If Hong Kong people want the undertakings made in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law to be fully and faithfully honoured, they too will have to be prepared to stand up and say so and that goes for all walks of life, lawyers, journalists, civil servants, businessmen, policemen.

    Hong Kong businessmen have a special responsibility not least because many of the opportunities you have to make these points lie with interlocutors in China and your interests will be directly affected if things go wrong. If you don’t appear to care about the survival of Hong Kong’s system, its rule of law, clean government and a free society, then others may draw the conclusion that they don’ t really matter but of course they do and everybody in this room knows that they matter.

    British sovereignty will end on 30 June 1997. A chief executive will take over the reins of one of the most challenging jobs in the world in which he or she will need the support of Hong Kong and the understanding of the international community. The flags will change, Britain will no longer have colonial responsibility for Hong Kong but Britain’s commitments to Hong Kong will not end next summer, far from it. The guarantees in the Joint Declaration extend for 50 years until 2047, the Joint Liaison Group will continue to function until the year 2000. That means that we in Britain will have continuing responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong, not just a moral responsibility as the former colonial power and as staunch friends of Hong Kong but a specific responsibility as a signatory to the Joint Declaration. We shall watch, vigilant, over the implementation of the treaty to which Britain and China have solemnly committed themselves. That treaty is of course registered at the United Nations but it will not just be Britain which will be watching, which is watching now over the implementation of the Joint Declaration. We shall ensure that others are watching as well Hong Kong will never have to walk alone. Every trading nation, every country engaged politically, economically or commercially with China and with the whole East Asian region has a direct interest in Hong Kong’s continuing success, not just success but success founded firmly on the specific promises made by Britain and made by China in the Joint Declaration, every member of the international community, all Hong Kong’s friends and partners around the world in both hemispheres and five continents will be watching to see that the letter and spirit of the Joint Declaration are honoured now, next year and for 50 years beyond and we will be making sure that they do.

    Our commitment – our British commitment – to take such a lead does not stem just from our moral responsibility; it is powerfully reinforced by Britain’s own self-interest. After the handover, there will still be a massive British presence in Hong Kong, a thousand British companies operate here, our investment in Hong Kong is around £70 billion sterling, our exports to china are £800 million per year but to Hong Kong they are £2.7 billion a year. Moreover, some 200,000 people here will be British citizens, some 3 million may be holders of British National Overseas passports, up to 2. 4 million may hold Special Administrative Region passports. Whichever passport Hong Kong people hold, they are concerned about ease of travel. It is an important issue, important for Hong Kong’s self-confidence as well as for its economy and trade but Hong Kong knows that we are living in a world of more restrictive visa regimes because of the abuses which governments are rightly expected to tackle.

    At present, British National Overseas passport-holders have visa-free access to the United Kingdom. That will continue, there are no plans to change that. The question now is whether the United Kingdom should also extend visa-free access to future holders of the Special Administrative Region passport. I have reflected carefully on this with Cabinet colleagues in London in the light of the powerful arguments put by the governor, by the Legislative Council, by business people and by the wider community in Hong Kong in recent months and the answer is yes, we shall extend visa-free access [Applause]. We have decided that holders of SAR passports will not – I repeat will not – be required to obtain visas for visits to Britain after 30 June 1997, there will be visa-free access. This will be an improvement for many Hong Kong people who held Certificates of Identity at the moment and who at present require visas to enter Britain; from July 1997, with an SAR passport they will not.

    I hope that this decision will be welcomed in Hong Kong. We shall be placing the details before Parliament in London today. In addition, the British Government will also be urging other like-minded countries around the world to follow our lead, to do what they can to maximise ease of travel for Hong Kong people after 1997. In particular, we look to the incoming sovereign power, to China, to work with us in promoting visa-free travel for Hong Kong people whatever passport they may hold. We hope that China will place all this on a firm foundation by bringing forward soon fair, practical arrangements for ensuring that all those who have right of abode in Hong Kong now continue to do so after 1997.

    There are two other immigration and nationality matters which have been raised many times by Hong Kong people: the position of the wives and widows of ex-servicemen who fought for Britain in the War and that of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong after 1997. Let me address first the question of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities with no nationality other than British.

    This is a limited group; their right of abode in Hong Kong after 1997 is guaranteed by the Joint Declaration; the British Government have made clear that any member of this group who would otherwise be stateless will be entitled to British Overseas Citizenship as will their children and grandchildren. We have also said repeatedly that if against all expectations, any solely British nationals come under pressure to leave Hong Kong, the British Government of the day would consider with considerable and particular sympathy their case for admission to the United Kingdom. Let me make clear today to this group that we are prepared to guarantee – repeat to guarantee – admission and settlement if at any time after 1 July 1997 they were to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong. It is the position of course, that this group do not wish to leave Hong Kong, they are settled here, their business is here, their families ties are here but they wish to be sure that if they come under pressure to leave that they will have a country to go to. Mr. Chairman, from today, they have that assurance [applause].

    The second matter concerns the wives and widows of ex-servicemen from Hong Kong. The Home Secretary has written personally to each of them to make clear they are free to come to the United Kingdom at any time and to settle there if they wish. What they continue to press for is full British citizenship in view of their husbands’ service to the Crown in time of war. Because the numbers involved are extremely small, this is an issue that could be satisfactorily dealt with by a Private Member’s Bill in Parliament. The Government would be happy to see such a Bill come forward and would encourage and facilitate its passage through Parliament. As a result, these ladies will then receive full British citizenship [applause]. Let me summarise the assurances I have been able to give today:

    First, Britain’s commitment to Hong Kong will continue well beyond the summer of 1997. That is both our moral responsibility and overwhelming in our own self-interest.

    Second, if in the future there were any suggestion of a breach of the Joint Declaration, we would mobilise the international community and pursue every legal or other avenue open to us.

    Third, we will give visa-free access to holders of the passport of the Special Administrative Region.

    Fourth, we are prepared to guarantee to the ethnic minorities admission and settlement in the United Kingdom if after 1997 they were to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong.

    Fifth, we will facilitate a Private Member’s Bill to give British citizenship to the wives and widows of the ex-servicemen from Hong Kong who fought in the War.

    Mr. Chairman, these five points will I hope help to provide reassurance to you, the people of Hong Kong, about Britain’s active interest in your future.

    As I said earlier, Hong Kong is at Europe’s and Asia’s crossroads, 1997 will not change that. Europe’s ties with Asia are ties of culture, of commerce, of history. That is especially true of Britain – of 24 Asian countries 8 are members of the Commonwealth. Britain is the largest European investor in China and in Asia as a whole but nowhere do we have as large a stake as we have here in Hong Kong.

    Will Hong Kong continue to succeed? You have succeeded magnificently already often against the odds. You have been an example to the world of what can be achieved by an open-market economy. It is your values – Hong Kong values – that are being copied all around the world. It is Hong Kong that points the way in the region. “Made in Hong Kong” is stamped these days on ideas and values, not just on toys and on textiles so it matters that Hong Kong continues to succeed, it matters to Britain, it matters to China, it matters to the world that Hong Kong succeeds.

    Next summer, the eyes of that world will be on Hong Kong, the world’s television cameras will be trained on the Territory, the world’s journalists encamped here literally in their thousands. For the next sixteen months people everywhere will be asking one question over and over again: “Will it all survive? Will it all work?” I am sure that it will, sure with one caveat, with one qualification, to be honest with one “if”: it will work and survive, as Anson Chan has said, if you remain true to yourselves, if you remain true to your values, true to the values that helped you create here in this Chinese city a community that is decent and prosperous, mightily successful and the whole world hopes abidingly free – not just now but for the future. Thank you very much! [Applause]

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Chairman, Mr. Major represents the Westminster tradition of democracy, the home of free speech and so forth. In a meeting here with Mr. Rifkind here he dodged this question. I would like to ask you to answer it:

    The question simply is: Given the situation in which 6 million people are being handed to a country and a government which over 70 per cent do not want, how on earth can you sleep comfortably at night?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you put it in the most aggressive way possible [Applause] and in the tradition of Westminster democracy, don’t be surprised if I am tempted to reply the same way!

    When you say “handed over”, you are a businessman, you enter into deals, you operate under the rule of law. We operate under the rule of law as well and the rule of law required that on 30 June, whether we like it or not, the British lease on Hong Kong actually ended. That is not a matter of an option, not a renewable option, it was a matter of international law. I don’t like it any more than you like it but I have to obey the law, I can’t simply address a reality as though it were a fiction and ignore it so our responsibility is to make sure that we mobilise our resources in negotiation and our resources in international pressure to make sure that the law is fully obeyed and to make sure that the agreements that have been reached between ourselves and China are fully obeyed as well and if you are inviting me to upend the original agreement that ends on 30 June 1997, hope you are not also going to say to me that I should take a tough line with the Chinese if they don’t obey the agreements and the law that they made in 1984 with Geoffrey Howe and Margaret Thatcher because this Colony exists because of the rule of law and that is something the Westminster tradition has to obey as well – and we will – but our interests in Hong Kong do not disappear, they don’t find people handed over bound hand and foot and powerless; that is not remotely the way things are going to be in 1997 as I have just spent the last half an hour trying – I hope successfully with many but perhaps not with you – to explain to people. [Applause] I think it is very doubtful that Malcolm Rifkind dodged the question but by God, I am not going to!

  • Mr Major’s Hong Kong Speech – 3 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, made after Chris Patten’s speech, in Hong Kong on Sunday 3rd March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr. Governor, Ladies and Gentlemen:

    Chris said, in an understatement that I have known so well over many years, that it had sometimes been a dull time. It has been a dull week. I have been working up to this evening and I am glad to be here but the last time Chris and I spoke together he referred to just a moment or so ago. We spoke side by side of course politically on many occasions but that time in Huntingdon he referred to I think was probably from memory the first time that we spoke side by side on the same day at the same meeting with the same intent and as Chris generously indicated, on that occasion I became the candidate for Huntingdon and he didn’t and I was a little surprised by this latterly and I asked, after this great event, of my former selection committee when they became my executive committee prior to the 1979 election; and said: “I am very pleased to be your candidate but why did you choose me and not Chris Patten?” and they said: “Well, Chris Patten was so good we thought he’d get a seat anywhere!” [laughter and applause] – and he did of course and latterly, to my very great regret but to your very great fortune, Bath made one of the worst decisions in its electoral history and I lost him from my Government and you gained him as your Governor.

    I might just tell you perhaps a little – to his embarrassment – of how that came about. Chris and I met the morning after the night before. We had won the election but we had lost the seat because of population changes in Chris’ s constituency of Bath and I said to Chris there were three options: he could stay in the United Kingdom and very probably fight the first promising by-election that occurred though these days in British electoral history no by-election is always a terribly attractive proposition; the second option, if he felt inclined, was that he could go into the House of Lords and back into the Cabinet after the 1992 election; the third option was that he could go to Hong Kong and look after that crucial period between 1992 and 1997 in that unique city, that unique territory, with all the obvious traumas and difficulties to be overcome and of those three decisions, after Chris had left me to consider it, I in my own mind had not a shred of doubt what decision he would take and that was indeed the decision he took. I believe it was the right decision for him and the right decision for Hong Kong and I am delighted to be here as his guest this evening.

    I have visited Hong Kong a few times over the years since I first came here to carry out a bank inspection at Standard Chartered Bank where I was less well received than I have been on this occasion [laughter]. As Chris said, I plan to make a speech tomorrow that I hope will contain one or two things of interest to the present company and other people in Hong Kong. This evening it is late and after dinner so let me just say a few things to you.

    Hong Kong by any reckoning is one of the greatest cities in the world, it is a city moving despite all the challenges into its prime, that prime lies ahead of it, not behind – not perhaps today but the New York of Asia for the 21st century and for many years to come. Many of the people who have made that possible from relatively modest beginnings are in the room tonight, many who share the responsibility in different aspects for Hong Kong’ s future are here this evening as well, a very heavy responsibility and a very big prize is at stake.

    Whenever I come to Hong Kong, I am struck essentially by three things by how much have achieved since I was last here; I saw this afternoon the Tsing Ma Bridge and the new airport, an astonishing series of changes since I signed the Memorandum of Understanding just four or so years ago; I sometimes think Hong Kong is the only city where you can change the skyline over the weekend and no-one comments, one comes back and sees these extraordinary changes; secondly, by how convincing you have always managed to confound the pessimists who are always there to predict the worst of futures for Hong Kong; and thirdly, by the sheer uniqueness of Hong Kong. I don’t just mean the size or the number of skyscrapers, I mean the vitality of the institutions and the way of life, the chemistry of boundless business energy, business energy allied both to the rule of law and the principles of free trade and that has always seemed to me to be the very nub of Hong Kong’s transition and that is what we need to preserve both in the short term and in the long term and I am confident that that can be done.

    I don’t come here from the other side of the world to doubt the difficulties and the challenges that Hong Kong faces in 1997, I don’t do that for a second. It is a difficult enterprise that you and we are engaged in, difficult for Britain, difficult for China but difficult above all for Hong Kong. It was always going to be difficult but I see no reason to be daunted by those challenges.

    In the last 50 years or so, Hong Kong has achieved a huge amount often against the odds; providing current uncertainties are resolved with pragmatic good sense, those achievements will roll on. I am myself confident about Hong Kong’s future because I believe that the nature of Hong Kong is the future, it represents the values of the future of Asia, economic liberty and freedom, openness, tolerance and decency. Those values can’t be defeated and they can’t be turned back and if I saw one thing above all else when I attend the Asia/Europe summit over the last few days in Bangkok, I saw the extent to which the eyes of some of the Europeans began to open as they saw the reality of what was actually happening in Asia not just in one centre or another – uniquely of course in Hong Kong – but right across the whole of Asia, a changing attitude, a changing level of prosperity, a changing nature, a determination to pursue economic prosperity in a way that I think many people in Europe had not imagined; they had not comprehended the sheer scale of dramatic change that is taking place in this part of the world and it was very striking to see that at the Asia/Europe summit in Bangkok just a day or so ago.

    Let me return, if I may for a moment, to Hong Kong and let me say this to you tonight, to the people who in many ways are the epitomy of what Hong Kong is, the people who in public service or in business or in politics are the driving forces of what Hong Kong presents to the world and what it is for itself and its own citizens; let me say this both to you and to the future sovereign power:

    The United Kingdom takes – and will continue to take after 1997 -, the closest possible interest in the future of Hong Kong. That has been so in the past and it will remain so in the future. There is no magic barrier that comes down on 30 June 1997 that will cut off the interest or the affection or the concern of the United Kingdom for what happens in Hong Kong after that date. You cannot cut adrift an instinct or a blood tie that has existed in the fashion of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong simply because the legal sovereignty of the territory changes; that does and there is nothing that we can do about that but equally, there is nothing we can or would wish to do about that ongoing affection and relationship both personal and practical and political and in terms of hard cash and hard investment that exists between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong and is going to go on existing for many years after 1997. Success is not only measured by Hong Kong’s life at midnight on 30 June next but by what it will be like many years thereafter and in that the United Kingdom will continue to take an interest.

    Whatever our differences have been over the years – and there have been some and there are some – I have no doubt that China has the same interest in that success. I had the opportunity at the Bangkok summit this week of spending some time talking to Li Peng about that matter and I was able to express to hint the importance for China’s own domestic interests of China observing in full the provisions of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law and he in turn confirmed to me China’s commitment to Hong Kong’s future autonomy, stability and prosperity.

    There were issues upon which we did not agree, some of them were important issues. We did not agree on the Bill of Rights, we did not agree upon the future of LEGCO and these are not issues that we are putting in the back of the cupboard, not issues that we put to one side to forget, not issues – as the press reported – upon which we agreed to disagree. We did not agree to disagree – we just disagreed – and that is a quite different proposition and we – and by “we” I mean the United Kingdom Government – will continue to argue strongly for all the provisions of the Joint Declaration to be met in those areas of vital importance to, Hong Kong and of vital importance to the future of its people.

    For our part, I believe that we have sought and we have managed the responsibilities bequeathed by history competently and decently and we will continue to do so not only until 30 June next year but also, so far as our powers allow and so far as our instincts will take us – and that is a very long way indeed – in the period beyond 30 June next year. I hope, we all hope, that China will manage those responsibilities in future with even greater success. That is what Britain, the world and above all the people of this territory would like to see.

    Much of the history of the next century may be made here, made in China, made in this region, made in Hong Kong. The meeting in Thailand was a striking acknowledgement of that fact and that is why after last week’ s summit I believe that Hong Kong must be fully involved directly in follow-up on all economic and trade issues which are within Hong Kong’ s autonomy. Hong Kong is one of the main bridges between Europe and Asia and it must be properly represented whenever those matters are discussed between Europe and between Asia and so it is you, the people of Hong Kong, who will be helping to write the history of the next century. I have a feeling of confidence in the way in which you will do that I have no doubt you will do it with the same flair, the same energy and the same success that has made this tiny territory such an economic force in the world today. As you do that, it will be the determination of the United Kingdom to be with you in the future as we have been in the past.

    Chris said that it is possible – not certain but possible – that this might be the last occasion on which a British prime minister visits the Governor of Hong Kong in his own residence during the period of British sovereignty over Hong Kong. Perhaps – not certainly but perhaps – but of this I am certain: however uncertain it may be whether this is the last visit under British sovereignty, it will not be the last visit of a British prime minister to Hong Kong, it will not be the last visit by British people interested emotionally, politically and economically in the interests of Hong Kong, it will by no means be the last investment in Hong Kong, by no means be the end of the relationship between Britain and Hong Kong. The relationship may change because of sovereignty changes but that it will continue and endure and economically strengthen I have not a shadow of a doubt.

    If I could say one thing to the people of Hong Kong, one thing that I would hope they would take and capture in their hearts for the future, it would simply be this:

    Look at yourselves and what you have achieved in the years that have gone past. I can find, wherever I look around the world, no comparative measure of success, no comparative improvement from a barren rock to the economic giant that exists today. That could not have been done without remarkable effort by remarkable people.

    If you look back on what has been achieved in the past then I believe you will have a greater reason to be confident about what can be achieved in the future and as you face that future up until next year and beyond, you will not, I promise you, face it alone and I look forward to coming back not just myself, not just this British prime minister but successive British prime ministers and British ministers visiting Hong Kong on many occasions in the future. The best of Hong Kong lies ahead, of that I am certain and if we can persuade the people of Hong Kong that that is the case then the success of that future becomes even more certain.

    Thank you for having me here this evening, I am delighted to have been here and I look forward to some of the things I have to say to you tomorrow lunchtime [applause].

  • Chris Patten’s Hong Kong Speech – 3 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Patten’s speech, made before John Major’s speech, in Hong Kong on Sunday 3rd March 1996.

    GOVERNOR OF HONG KONG, CHRIS PATTEN:

    Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen:

    The last time, Prime Minister, that you and I spoke as it were side by side, the circumstances were certainly very different. I think it is fair to say the Continent was different too but going back even further into the dark ages when we were both young with hardly a grey hair between us the first time we spoke, if not side by side then certainly seriatim, was when we were in the same queue of aspirants applying to become the Conservative Party’s candidate in Huntingdon, a safe seat in England [Laughter].

    As my guests may have noticed this evening, I was not chosen. I doubt whether either of us, Prime Minister, would have guessed then where politics and charm were to carry us. I break no secrets when I say again – which you know I mean – that I am delighted that a fair wind carried you to No 10 Downing Street and that it has brought you here again tonight.

    You are the second British prime minister to have visited Hong Kong in office; this is the fourth visit by a serving prime minister. Your predecessor came twice and you have come on your second visit as well but this is a community which of course you know well first as a banker – and we have Ian Wilson here tonight to prove it – I hope John Grey doesn’t mind me making that point – and more recently as a politician and as Prime Minister. We are delighted that we are able to see you at the end of a week which has included among much else the Anglo-Irish summit and the Bangkok summit. All of us are accustomed to being introduced by chairmen who express their gratitude that we have interrupted our busy schedules to come and speak to them. Prime Minister, we are a part not just of your busy schedule this week but of an extraordinarily punishing schedule and we are extremely pleased that you are able in those circumstances to spend a couple of days here with us in Hong Kong.

    You know, Prime Minister, how tough and how difficult are the challenges that we face in Hong Kong. The last time you came here, you were hot-foot from Peking where you had just signed the Memorandum of Understanding at the airport. While it is true that things did not subsequently work out quite as smoothly as we had all hoped – I speak with my usual mixture of euphemism and diplomatic tact! – we nevertheless just got on with things and built the airport anyway and you were able to see the spectacular results today. I think that is typical of Hong Kong. Whatever the challenges, Hong Kong manages to rise to them so that today we remain one of the most successful, one of the most prosperous and one of the most decent cities in the world. I am optimistic that Hong Kong, with its magnificent civil service, will work its way just as successfully through the problems of the next few years.

    In managing the transition – in managing this unique enterprise – both Britain and China face very difficult tasks. I want to thank you personally, Prime Minister, for the generous and unequivocal support that you have given to us in Hong Kong since I have been Governor. We couldn’t have asked for more and I think it is particularly valuable that the question of Hong Kong and its future has never been allowed to become a matter of cross-party controversy at Westminster.

    I know, Prime Minister, that you will be making your principal speeches in Hong Kong tomorrow talking to the Legislative Council and talking to the Chambers of Commerce at lunch, and then addressing an open press conference later in the day and I also suspect – in fact I know – that you, share with me antipathy to spoiling the digestive process by making lengthy speeches after dinner but we would all be grateful if, on what may be the last occasion on which a British prime minister visits this house under British sovereignty, you would say few words to us this evening. Thank you! [Applause]

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Can you tell us something about your discussions with ….

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    Visa free passports?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    Will you be holding a press conference during your trip?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    In your talks with the Chinese Premier…..

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

    So you did know in advance?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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