The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Hong Kong

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you think Mr Blair should sack him?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    GRAHAM FRY:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

    So that was a helpful movement.

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

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

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

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

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PMQT – 29 February 1996

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

  • Text of the Queen’s Speech – 16 November 1994

    Below is the text of the Queen’s Speech, held on 16th November 1994.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.

    The Duke of Edinburgh and I look forward to receiving the State Visit of His Highness the Amir of Kuwait in May and His Excellency the President of Finland in October next year.

    The Duke of Edinburgh and I look forward to our State Visit to South Africa in March. We also look forward to our visit to New Zealand and to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting there in November next year.

    My Government attach the highest importance to national security. They will work to continue the process of NATO’s adaptation to the changing security environment to allow it to play a wider role in protecting stability throughout Europe. At the Budapest summit in December they will seek to enhance the role of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in conflict prevention and resolution. They will also work for full implementation of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty. The United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent will be maintained.

    My Government will continue its efforts to promote a peaceful settlement in the former Yugoslavia.

    Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains an important priority. My Government will work to promote the indefinite and unconditional extension of the Nuclear

    Non-Proliferation Treaty; and will pursue energetically negotiations for a verifiable and comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The fight against terrorism in the United Kingdom and elsewhere will be maintained.

    My Government look forward to the enlargement of the European Union in January. They will work with our partners to give greater substance to the Europe agreements between the Union and countries of Central Europe, with the aim of preparing these countries for eventual membership of the Union.

    My Government will work for early implementation of the Agreements concluding the GATT trade negotiations, and for early establishment of the World Trade Organisation.

    They will seek to ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is applied to European legislation. They will promote budgetary discipline in the Union and combat fraud. They will participate in the study group which from June 1995 will prepare for the 1996 Inter-Governmental conference.

    My Government will continue to promote respect for human rights. They will maintain a substantial aid programme to promote sustainable development and good government.

    The United Nations will celebrate its Fiftieth Anniversary in 1995. My Government will continue efforts to enhance the capabilities of the United Nations, particularly in peacekeeping and preventive diplomacy.

    My Government will play an active part in tackling drug misuse, drug trafficking and organised crime at home and abroad.

    Support for consolidation of a peaceful and stable democracy in South Africa will remain a priority.

    My Government will continue to work for the long-term stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. They will seek to develop co-operation with China to implement the Sino-British Joint Declaration in the best interests of the Hong Kong people and a smooth transition in 1997.

    Support for political and economic reform in the former Communist countries of Europe and Asia will continue.

    My Government will maintain support for the Middle East Peace Process.

    They will work for yet stronger ties with the countries of the Asia Pacific region.

    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,

    Legislation will be introduced to give force to the changes in the European Community’s system of own resources following the agreement at the Edinburgh European Council.

    My Government will continue with firm financial policies designed to support continuing economic growth and rising employment, based on permanently low inflation.

    Fiscal policy will continue to be set to bring the budget deficit back towards balance over the medium term. My Government will reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector.

    My Government will continue to promote enterprise, to improve the working of the labour market, and to strengthen the supply performance of the economy. They will bring forward legislation to promote increased competition in the gas industry and to reform the agricultural tenancy laws in England and Wales. A Bill will be introduced to create a Jobseeker’s Allowance, reforming benefits for unemployed people and giving them better help into work.

    Legislation will be introduced to equalise the State pension age between men and women and to improve security, equality and choice in non-state pensions.

    My Government will continue to implement policies and programmes responsive to the needs of the individual citizen, in line with the principles of the Citizen’s Charter.

    They will introduce a Bill to tackle discrimination against disabled people.

    My Government will bring forward legislation to make further improvements to the management of the National Health Service; and to provide for people with a serious mental disorder discharged from hospital to be cared for under supervision.

    Legislation will be introduced to transfer the Crown Agents and the commercial activities of the Atomic Energy Authority to the private sector; and to authorise the construction and operation by the private sector of a high speed rail link between London and the Channel Tunnel.

    The delivery of environment policies will be strengthened by legislation to establish environment agencies for England and Wales, and for Scotland.

    Legislation will be introduced to reform the Scottish Criminal Justice system.

    In Northern Ireland my Government will build on the progress already made to secure peace and a comprehensive political accommodation founded on the principles of democracy and consent. They will uphold law and order and strive to strengthen the economy and create equality of opportunity for all sections of the community. They will seek to maintain close and constructive relations with the Republic of Ireland.

    My Government will promote further measures of law reform. Other measures will be laid before you.

    My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

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

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Tokyo – 20 September 1993

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

    QUESTION (Sanke Newspaper):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Japan Economic Journal):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

    MR PERRY:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Sanke Newspaper):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (Jonathan Annals, Evening Standard Business Day):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (John Sergeant, BBC):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Todo News Service):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION (Jiji News Service):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (NHK):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Reuters):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (TASS):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (John Craig, Daily Express):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION (NHK):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    CHAIRMAN:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    CHAIRMAN:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet – 16 November 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech in London to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, held on 16 November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My Lord Mayor, My late Lord Mayor, Your Grace, Your Excellencies, My Lords, Aldermen, Sheriffs, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    May I begin by thanking you for the toast this evening and congratulating you on your election. Let me give you a message of good cheer. I hope the six months after your election are less eventful than the six months after mine. And may I say, on behalf of all of us here, how glad we are to see the Lady Mayoress at your side tonight, and how much we admire her courage after her recent accident.

    It is a time-honoured tradition to speak to this audience about foreign affairs. I can imagine how much you are looking forward to a detailed exposition of Title 6, Article KI, Clause 2, Line 3 of the Maastricht Treaty.

    But tonight I would like to break with tradition. I will talk about the international situation for a while, but primarily I intend to talk about confidence. About recovery. About the future of our country. About how to generate growth and bring lasting jobs and prosperity.

    It is fitting to do so here – surrounded by so many who have a leading role in commerce, in industry, in the media, in the professions. All have a vital part to play in building up our confidence in our country and our future.

    It is only three years ago that Western leaders spoke with euphoria of a “New World Order”. They looked forward to a new age of prosperous, stable democracies.

    The Cold War has gone. The Soviet Empire has gone. The Berlin Wall has gone. But so have their simple certainties. The collapse of the Communist system has left a vacuum and it will take time for freedom and the market to fill it. Throughout history, such circumstances have been fertile breeding ground for extremism and unrest. We must work to ensure the late twentieth century is an exception. But the genie is out of the bottle, and that narrow line between patriotism and nationalism is in danger of being overstepped in many countries.

    So there is great hope – but greater uncertainty. And we are living through a fundamental reappraisal of how the West should respond in difficult economic circumstances.

    Britain is in a unique position to influence that response. As a permanent member of the Security Council, as a member of NATO, the CSCE, the Commonwealth and the European Community, we are at the centre of the overlapping groups of nations which seek to order the world’s affairs. Our role as a leading power in Europe has brought added value to our relationship with the United States.

    And let me pay tribute here to President George Bush. There are many dangers in today’s world. But the world is safer today than when George Bush first took office four years ago, and much of that is due to his leadership and his values. As we congratulate President-elect Clinton, let us not forget our old friend George Bush, and say to him: you have been a true friend to our country and you will always be an honoured guest here.

    As we look at our overseas responsibilities we know we have a special responsibility for Hong Kong. There is no one better than Chris Patten to lead Hong Kong through to 1997 with energy, skill and wisdom. I hope the Chinese Government will look at his proposals for Hong Kong, not with suspicion, for which there is no cause, but in the spirit that we and he intend. “One country, two systems”, was what Deng Xiaoping promised. Our proposals are entirely consistent with that philosophy. They do not threaten China. They do benefit Hong Kong. And we want a happy, prosperous and confident Hong Kong to be our enduring legacy to China after 1997.

    There are few greater human tragedies than in Yugoslavia. Over recent months Britain has led the international community in a search for a peaceful settlement and in efforts to bring humanitarian relief to those in need. We have sent trucks, mechanics, winter shelter, medicines, food and clothing. And our RAF pilots have led the repeated air lifts into Sarajevo with great courage and tenacity for many months. In August we mobilised the world community on behalf of peace in Yugoslavia. We have sent British troops – the Cheshire Regiment – to help deliver humanitarian aid in difficult and dangerous circumstances. We owe that help to the innocent victims of the conflict. We owe it also to ourselves, for if the conflict spreads it could spread far beyond the borders of the former Yugoslavia itself.

    It is a moot point whether the Yugoslav war would have begun if the Soviet Empire had not collapsed. But it is in our long-term interests that a new democratic Russia emerges confident and free. Last week President Yeltsin visited London and agreed a Treaty of Friendship and five other agreements. It was the first such Treaty between our countries since George III and Catherine the Great.

    President Yeltsin sees clearly that Russia’s future can only lie in democracy and a free market. There are powerful forces ranged against him. No one alive in Russia today knows first-hand what a modern market economy is. The Russian people are being asked to make enormous short-term sacrifices for the longer term gain.

    The route mapped out for them by Boris Yeltsin is a hard one, but it is the only one. The alternative would be to turn the clock back to the grisly apparatus of repression. Back to the old structures which once supported the Soviet State and have now gone, and – hopefully – gone for good. I hope that for their own sake as well as for ours, the Russian people will follow the lead that President Yeltsin has set them. It will not be easy. We cannot bear their sacrifice for them. But we can help them. Support them. Encourage them. And so we shall. Because we have the chance in our generation to fashion a new Europe from West to East. One where inter-locking trade interests enable future generations to live in greater security than we have known before. There is no greater prize than that.

    Of course the Russians and others are struggling to reform against a uniquely difficult background of world recession. In America – as in Britain – consumers and businessmen have been battling to reduce their burden of debt, built up in the boom years of the late 1980s and impeding recovery today.

    In Japan, growth is stalling. In Germany, people are facing what Chancellor Kohl recently called the “hour of truth”. In Italy, the Government has had to take drastic measures to restrain the growth in public debt. In France, unemployment exceeds 3 million and yet their real interest rates are nearly twice as high as ours.

    There is evidence of an instinct that is dangerously strong in times of economic difficulty: to look inwards, put up the shutters and slam the door on the free trade that has brought prosperity to the post-war world.

    My Lord Mayor, you referred to the GATT round. I agree with you. It is vital we get an early and comprehensive settlement. It is not tolerable for the world to fail to agree. We cannot let a handful of oil seeds or a sack of grain get in the way of the boost such a settlement would give to the world economy. At a conservative estimate, it would add nearly 200 billion dollars to world output. Two hundred billion dollars of prosperity, income and jobs.

    Nor is an agreement merely an economic necessity. It is a moral imperative. Because it is not only the businessmen of Europe and America who stand to gain from the successful completion of the Uruguay round. Developing countries in the third world, aspiring market economies in eastern Europe: both need the opportunity to sell, so they can earn their way to the prosperity we tell them will follow from economic reform.

    We, too, stand to gain enormously from a successful outcome. The stakes are high. Of all the successive rounds of negotiations to liberalise world trade that have lubricated post-war economic growth, this is the most ambitious. It needed to be, because trade today takes new forms, susceptible to new and less visible barriers. Of course, the old battle against tariffs is not over. British manufacturers still face some swingeing imposts, not least in the United States, where a successful Uruguay round will open up new opportunities to our textile, chemical and ceramic industries.

    As the City well knows, British financial services meet more subtle but no less damaging national restrictions. Our “intellectual property” – books, cassettes, discs, software – is still counterfeited in many countries. Our foreign investments are hampered by some countries’ dog-in-the-manger restrictions on the repatriation of profits. All these trade barriers and abuses are being tackled in the Uruguay round that now hangs in the balance.

    What is true for Britain is true for Europe. The European Commission has suggested that the Community could quadruple its exports of services with an agreement. European industries have much to gain from success. That is why, during our Presidency of the Community, I have put Britain’s weight behind the effort to secure agreement; supported the Commission’s negotiators; constantly warned our partners of the danger of delay. We have lost no opportunity of pressing for a settlement.

    But, even as President of the Community, Britain is now able to conduct the negotiations. That is the duty of the Commission. Responsibility for trade matters cannot be escaped or buried behind newer preoccupations. Brussels must not fail in this fundamental duty. Britain will give every support to a settlement. Nothing would break the clouds of world recession more surely than the boost to confidence of a successful Uruguay round.

    The GATT settlement is a vital complement to the opportunity opening before Britain in the single European market. 1993 will see the culmination of a European effort in which Britain has taken the leading part. It is a clear example of the cold, hard common sense and commercial self-interest that lies behind our decision to be part of Europe.

    Well over half of all our trade is with the European Community. Inward investment flows here to take advantage of British skills and a flexible British labour market – and Britain’s opportunity to sell into the biggest free trade area in the world. We have the lion’s share of inward investment into the Community; but we get it because we are in the Community.

    The single market in Europe is an opportunity for which Britain is uniquely well placed. We have now put in place the policies and the measures. We must now ensure Britain takes full advantage to advance the recovery we all want to see. As more and more people – businessmen, consumers, house-buyers, investors – start to look forward with more confidence to what the future offers, that will itself provide the engine for recovery.

    Our economic policy objective has always been the same: sustainable non-inflationary growth.

    The essential precondition – lower inflation – is now clearly in place. When I became Chancellor three years ago inflation was rising towards 11 per cent and many feared it would rise still further. Interest rates were 15 per cent and seemed stuck there. How easy it is now to forget the perils of that position. That was why we joined the ERM. For two years that policy succeeded beyond all expectations: inflation fell to under 4 per cent, and interest rates fell from 15 per cent to 10 per cent.

    Our commitment to maintain low inflation remains as strong as ever. Inflation ravages peoples’ savings. And if people cannot be confident even in the value of money, how can they be confident about their economic future? But we now face a world where the inflationary pressures are weak. And that has given us the opportunity to loosen monetary policy and create a more competitive environment for business and industry.

    Since we left the ERM, we have reduced interest rates by a further 3 per cent. Down to 7 per cent, the lowest in the European Community. Down by 8 per cent over the last two years. Down to the lowest level for nearly 15 years.

    This should provide a huge boost to industry. The cut last week will take a further £1 billion off industry’s interest costs – provided it is passed on to borrowers, to small businesses as well as large, as I trust it will be. This brings the total saving to industry to over £10 billion a year. And low interest rates also provide additional spending power for consumers: £145 a month off repayments on an average mortgage.

    In addition, we now have an exchange rate that is fiercely competitive. Not just in export markets but here at home too. And the Government is determined that that competitive advantage should not be frittered away by higher inflation.

    It was against this background that Norman Lamont presented his Autumn Statement last Thursday. And what he set out to do was to demonstrate how the Government’s commitment to industry is right at the heart of our policies. To demonstrate that not just by words, but by decisions. Decisions to give priority to industry in the Government’s spending plans and in our tax policies.

    Support for industry is not – indeed could not be – our only priority. I believe that people right across the country share my view that the poorest and neediest members of society must be protected. So we honoured all our commitments to uprate pensions and other benefits, in spite of the heavy financial cost.

    But this does mean we have to look for some sacrifice by those in work. We cannot turn our back on our responsibilities to those who are not. That is why we have decided to restrict pay settlements in the public sector to a maximum of 1.5 per cent next year. I know that is tough for some. I do not like doing it but I believe it is necessary. I am asking for sacrifices by those in work to help get others back into work. And I believe there is an instinct for fairness in the British character that will understand that and accept it.

    Ministers and MPs should make their contribution too. There will be no increase at all in Ministers’ pay next year and we shall introduce a Resolution in the Commons to provide for no increase in Members’ pay either.

    Salaries in the private sector are for the private sector to determine. But it would be wrong of me not to use this gathering tonight to say very frankly that costs must be controlled everywhere, not just on the shop floor but in the boardroom too. We have set a lead in the public sector. I hope we will see that mirrored throughout the private sector.

    In his Autumn Statement, the Chancellor announced a wide range of measures to help business. We listened to what industry was saying. Industry can only succeed if it is able to adapt to changing circumstances. And Government must be ready to do so too.

    So, for example, Norman Lamont announced huge changes to the rules on private finance for capital projects, giving new encouragement to joint ventures between the public and the private sector. Joint ventures that should help to bring forward infrastructure projects in Scotland, in the Midlands, in the South East, in London, and indeed right across the United Kingdom. Lord Mayor, I welcome your theme of “the City and industry in partnership”. But we should go further: my theme is “the City, industry and the Government in partnership”.

    It was essential that, in settling public expenditure, the Government did not spend more than could be afforded. Industry would not have thanked us for that, if the result had been higher taxes. So it was vital to stick to the remit set down by Cabinet in July. The Autumn Statement did just that.

    It required some tough decisions. But we had to give priority to capital spending and to the needs of industry. So we have provided for the Jubilee Line extension to go ahead, and for British Rail to invest £1 billion next year. We have protected the roads programme – and lower tender prices should permit nearly twice as many new roads projects to be started next year. And there will be record capital spending in the health service.

    Norman Lamont also announced extra help for the housing market and the construction industry. £750 million to buy up empty properties that are overhanging the housing market. And a relaxation of the rules on local authorities’ receipts, to stimulate an extra £1.75 billion of capital spending.

    He also increased ECGD cover for exporters by £700 million, to ensure that they really can take advantage of the competitive opportunities now open to them.

    On the tax side, he announced an increase in first year allowances for investment by industry. And the complete abolition of the car tax. These are measures that industry had been seeking. Measures that will help generate confidence and underpin the economy.

    Lord Mayor, we need to build up our manufacturing base to meet the demands of today’s markets. I do not regard manufacturing industry as a marginal add-on optional extra – it is fundamental to our future prosperity. That does not mean supporting industries whose markets have been irretrievably lost – lost because developing countries now manufacture for themselves what they once imported from us.

    What it does mean is to provide the sort of environment that encourages modern, well-equipped British industry to compete with the best in the world. Our supply side reforms continue to transform industrial relations and strip away many of the inefficiencies that had dogged British industry. We now have an industry that can compete with the best – and beat it.

    My Lord Mayor, I do not have too many prejudices. But let me share with you one that I do have. I am sick and tired of hearing people talk down our country and play down our achievements.

    Modesty may be an attractive quality. But as a nation we carry it too far. Too often we slip from healthy self-deprecation into an unhealthy, self-denigration. I know of no country more tolerant, more free, more open. Too often the Britain I read about is not the Britain I see when I travel around the country. Too often the views and opinions I hear quoted are not the views and opinions I hear direct from the lips of ordinary Britons.

    So let us have confidence in our skills, our design, our ingenuity and – yes, our achievements.

    – With low inflation;

    – With the lowest interest rates in the European Community;

    – With a very competitive exchange rate;

    – With the Single Market on our doorstep;

    – With a GATT deal tantalisingly close,

    There is a great opportunity for British business.

    The Government has listened to what industry has been saying. It has introduced the policies and the measures that industry has been seeking. So let us capitalise on our assets. Throughout this country there is a deep sense of national pride. An overwhelming desire to pull together and work together. We have done it often enough before in our history. Now, in order to recreate confidence and lift us back into growth and recovery we must do it again, in a true partnership for prosperity.

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

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

    THE BEST TEAM FOR A DANGEROUS WORLD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We must give a lead at the Rio summit.

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

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

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Sellafield

    Mr. McGrady : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure co-ordination of consideration by the Secretaries of State for Energy, for Environment and for Northern Ireland of the environmental impact of the Sellafield plant on Northern Ireland and the Irish sea.

    The Prime Minister : I am satisfied that suitable mechanisms already exist to achieve the required co-ordination.

     

    Bingham Inquiry

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister on what date he gave his evidence to the Bingham inquiry ; and if he will place a copy of his evidence in the Library.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing to add to the letter I sent the hon. Member on 22 January, a copy of which has been placed in the House Library.

     

    Hong Kong

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the visits made to Hong Kong by Government Ministers since June 1987 giving the date and purpose of the visit in each case.

    The Prime Minister : The following Government Ministers visited Hong Kong since June 1987 on Government business :

    Ministerial Visits to Hong Kong

    1987 (from June) :

    Lord Glenarthur, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in September.

    1988 :

    Sir Geoffrey Howe, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in May ; Lord Glenarthur, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in February and June ; Mr. Chris Patten, Minister for Overseas Development, in September ; Lord Young, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in June ; Mr. Cecil Parkinson, Secretary of State for Energy, in June ; Mr. George Younger, Secretary of State for Defence, in March ; Mr. Archie Hamilton, Minister of State for the Armed Forces, in March ; Mr. Ian Stewart, Minister of State for the Armed Forces, in January ; Mr. Peter Morrison, Minister of State for Energy, in September ; Mr. Wyn Roberts, Minister of State, Welsh Office, in September ; Mr. John Macgregor, Minister for Agriculture, in September ; Mr. Paul Channon, Secretary of State for Transport, in November ; Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Secretary of State for the Environment, in December ; Mr. Francis Maude, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in September.

    1989 :

    Lord Mackay, Lord Chancellor, in December ; Sir Geoffrey Howe, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in July ; Lord Young, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in April ; Lord Glenarthur, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in January ; and his successor, Mr. Francis Maude, in September ; Mr. Peter Viggers, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Industry, in November ; and Mr. Richard Needham, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in December. 1990 :

    Mr. Douglas Hurd, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in January ; Mr. Michael Howard, Secretary of State for Employment, in September ; Mr. Francis Maude, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in April and July ; and his successor, Lord Caithness, in September ; Mr. Tim Sainsbury, Minister for Trade and Mr. David Mellor, Minister for the Arts, in September ; Mr. Peter Lloyd, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Home Office, in March and Mr. John Maples, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in November.

    1991 :

    I visited in September ; Mr. Douglas Hurd, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in April and September ; Mr. Michael Heseltine, Secretary of State for the Environment, in September ; Mr. Tom King, Secretary of State for Defence, in September ; Mr. John Wakeham, Secretary of State for Energy, in November ; Mr. John Gummer, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in October ; and Lord Caithness, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in January, July and December.

     

    Departmental Information Systems

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the current state of implementation of FAMIS–financial and management information systems–or its equivalent in each of Her Majesty’s Government’s Departments ; and what proposals he has to develop the system.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 27 January 1992] : Following the financial management initiative, most Departments have been developing financial and management information systems, although there is no single model. Executive agencies set up under the “next steps” initiative are now doing the same. Such systems require continuing development to clarify managerial responsibility, to give better information on how to improve value for money and quality of service from the resources consumed, and to meet changing business needs. The Government will continue to encourage the effort being devoted to developing such systems.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 October 1991

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Official Visits

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

     

    Switzerland (Military Agreements)

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    Downing Street Office

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

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

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    Hospitality Costs

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    Foreign Visits

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

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

     

    Zimbabwe

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    City Challenge

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

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

     

    Yugoslavia

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    Energy Conservation

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

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    Ozone Layer

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    UK Nuclear Deterrent

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    Kuwait

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    BR Fare Increases

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    French Prime Minister

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    Dalai Lama

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

    Mr. MacGregor : I have been asked to reply.

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

     

    Environmental Protection Agency

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

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

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

     

    Research and Development

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

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

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

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

     

    Soviet Union

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    China

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

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

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

     

    Ministerial Visits

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

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

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

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

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

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