The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Ian Lang

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Briefing with Ian Lang – 12 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press briefing with the President of the Board of Trade, Ian Lang, made en route to Islamabad on Sunday 12th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought before we talked about Pakistan you just might like to hear what Ian has been doing over the past 24 hours and of the contracts that you don’t yet know about that have been signed since we came here.

    MR LANG:

    We had a very good positive visit to Delhi. The businessmen, some of them pursued their individual contacts, others took part in seminars. I was at the British Council opening a new Business Management Centre for remote learning involving Strathclyde University and Durham University. That is going extremely well, they are getting a large number of applications from Indians to take part. I also opened a new English language remote learning centre which is also going well.

    I witnessed a number of further signings and it might be helpful to you to know that we really have built up quite a list of signings and contracts during this visit. It wasn’t what the visit was about, but it does illustrate how business is going on all the time in India. And when we talk about the rise in exports having almost doubled in 4 years, and how investment has risen by 50 percent in the same period and now stands at 3 billion pounds – the biggest outward investor in India – it is when you see the day-to-day deals that are being struck that that takes on more reality.

    You have seen details of some Of these already; Bays deal, a 22.5 percent stake in Bharti Cellular Limited; GEC-Alston, a gas turbine project, 110 megawatts with the Usher Group; also with the Usher Group a dedicated computer software centre; the 600 Group, a major machine tool manufacturer, has signed a 4 million pounds contract with Mysore Kerloska [phon] Company to manufacture components for machinery; Rolls Royce Subsidiary has signed a deal with SSB in Bangalore to make high voltage insulators; BCC is expanding substantially in its plants around India; Richard Ellis has done a property development, the biggest in India, to build new housing in Delhi where there was previous industrial activity; and HSBC’s new office, which I opened last night in Delhi, is going to be the basis for its new corporate finance company. Those are all worthwhile deals, none of them are megadeals, but cumulatively they add up to substantial business, and there was an enormously positive response to the business delegation throughout the trip to Delhi and I hope that gives you some flavour of the sort of things that are going on.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That really just adds to what you heard earlier about India. When Ian made the point that that was not what we were here for, we were looking for much longer term trends, this is work in progress as it turns out, picked up during the course of this particular visit.

    Let me turn minds forward to Islamabad and what we are going to be doing in the next couple of days. The reason for visiting Pakistan is pretty much the same as the reason for visiting India. We have got a very substantial trade flow with Pakistan. I think the trade balance is actually quite narrow, but I think they sell slightly more to us than we do at the moment in terms of normal everyday trade.

    What has been very startling has been the growth of UK investment in Pakistan over the past three years or so. We are now very marginally behind the United States as the largest investor in Pakistan. It is overwhelmingly likely that we will comfortably pass them this year. Our capital investment in Pakistan has pretty much quadrupled in the last three years and is on a very sharply rising trend.

    Again, if I could emphasise the point, we see this as very much a long term endeavour to build up interest in Pakistan rather than any contracts that may emerge in the immediate future.

    The possibilities for Pakistan we think are very substantial, we think that is true in a number of very mega contracts. There are some contracts where agreements in principle have been reached but finance agreement hasn’t been reached and the financial deal hasn’t actually been closed, and I am sure Ian could give you more details of those later privately if you wished.

    Beyond that, we are going to the Afghanistan border tomorrow. There is a very good reason for that. A very large part of the drugs trade which affects Western Europe actually comes down that route and I want some clear briefing on what is actually being done to inhibit that drugs trade and to examine what we, the British, can do to help, and also what we, the Europeans, can do to try and cut down on the amount of that drugs movement. It is a very serious drugs route indeed and I think it will be intriguing to see exactly what is going to happen.

    I know political times are exciting in Pakistan and neither Ian nor I propose to get involved in domestic Pakistani politics. You may well ask, I can’t inhibit your questions, but I don’t propose to get involved in the details of that. We are expecting the elections to take place on 3 February. We think all the mainstream political figures will be candidates in that election. We look forward to the return of a democratically elected government in Pakistan.

    One issue I will raise while I am here with the principal figures I meet in Pakistan is the Kashmiri kidnap. Mr Wells and Mr Mangan have now been missing with two others – three others originally, but you will recall a Norwegian was found murdered they have been missing for 18 months. The last certain information about them was the end of 1985. A great deal of work continues and I will raise yet again our interest in finding out exactly what is, or was, the fate of those four people who were kidnapped.

    So that covers broadly the agenda, a very strong trade balance. I would expect to see Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and the President and the Prime Minister and it may well be other prominent figures will arrive at our reception tomorrow night, or at the Prime Minister’s dinner tonight.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Yesterday you were quite critical of Western European nations for not doing enough to open their markets for developing countries to help lift people out of poverty. Could you elaborate a little bit on that? Also, do you see the single currency as something which would create a fortress Europe, which would take them further along that path?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think a single currency would make any difference. The reality is that Western Europe has been quite slow to open some of its markets. It is moving in the right direction but it isn’t moving fast enough. And the point I have made before I will reiterate again. It is an oddity to provide aid to countries on one hand, while on the other hand you fail to give them something they need every bit as much, and that is access to Western markets. So we very much believe that open markets and free trade are in everyone’s interest. They are never entirely a pain-free option, don’t let me suggest that they are, but it increases the sum amount of trade. And I think if you see some of the poorer nations of the world and you look at their prospects for becoming self-dependent, well they are not going to become self-dependent if they cannot export what they have to export freely into Western markets. If we are serious about helping them then we have to accept that markets must progressively be freed, and that is what we would like to do. I don’t think the impact of a single currency would have any difference either way.

    MR LANG:

    Can I just add that we pressed hard at the WTO Conference in Singapore to adopt the initiative of Director, General Rugeiro of the WTO. We gave a lead on this within Europe. We believe it is the best way of helping poor countries to improve their conditions.

    QUESTION:

    The Americans at one stage recently suspended aid to Pakistan because they believed that Pakistan was seeking to acquire materials to become a nuclear power, Do you have any worries about Pakistan’s ambitions in this direction and if you found hard evidence of Pakistan attempting to acquire such materials, would you consider suspending British aid at any stage?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we would consider what action if and when we had hard evidence. But we are certainly very keen to see Pakistan and India, and China for that matter, sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. That has been an objective of policy for some time. Each of the nations is unwilling to do so because they foresee difficulties, if they do so, without the others doing so also and so that is pretty much left in stalemate. But clearly I think it is desirable, on economic as well as political grounds, for action to be taken to make sure there are no more nuclear weapons in this part of the world.

    QUESTION:

    You have mentioned the substantial list of contracts that have been signed both in India and which expect to be signed tomorrow. As a result of this trip do you expect some even more substantial contracts to be signed both with India and Pakistan by UK companies over the next few months, can you give any indications of that?

    MR LANG:

    Yes I do and I know of one or two that are in negotiation, but because they are in negotiation they are confidential at this stage. But I would expect that in addition to those that are being negotiated, the high profile that has been given to this delegation’s visit within India, and the very positive reception arising from Prime Minister Gowda’s involvement as well, will lead to a further flow of business. Certainly the Indian press have been positive and the businessmen that we have met have been very positive.

    QUESTION:

    It has been suggested today that Labour’s windfall tax is illegal. Do you believe that Labour’s windfall tax is illegal?

    PRIME MINISTER

    I don’t really want to get involved in domestic matters until I get back.

    QUESTION:

    Would you anticipate at all, so far as the north-west frontier is concerned, making representations at the European Union if you thought it was necessary to make a greater commitment so far as choking off the drug supply there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Absolutely. We have produced a number of initiatives, some of them with the French, some of them with the Germans, to deal with the problem of drugs at a European Union level. For example, the initiative to cut off the Latin American route at the Eastern Caribbean by providing more resources, providing ships to cut off and providing extra resources for policing. And most certainly I will report back to our European partners on what we discover on this occasion. Because these are drug routes that come to Western Europe, not just to Britain, and we have seen the drug problem in some parts of the world, it is very important that Western Europe acts early and decisively to cut off the drugs route whenever it can. So the answer to your question is unequivocally yes.

    QUESTION:

    Will there be a financial commitment?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Maybe, maybe financial, maybe help with policing, maybe a range of things, maybe extra action within Western Europe to stop it coming in. It could be any or all of these things. But by and large you need to take action at source, either at source or on the route of the drug trade, and I think that is the sort of thing I would be likely to report back to them. And I would expect to have a ready and willing hearing for that message.

    QUESTION:

    You talked a moment ago about access to Western markets, but drugs are one thing which do have an access to Western markets and ready buyers. How does one compensate the kind of people who are very poor, who grow many of these drugs, in terms of aid and give them an alternative livelihood, as the Americans have tried to do in South America?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the majority of the money doesn’t actually go to them so the compensation really would be in terms of providing alternative sources of employment and alternative investment and that is something I think we would have to look at across Western Europe and in North America. For example, if I could go back to the Caribbean exercise, the drugs that come from Latin America to the Eastern Caribbean then go in two directions: they go northwards to the United States and they then go westwards to Western Europe. So I think there is scope. You are quite right, you need to deal with the primary source as well, though I don’t think we are in the direction of redirecting our aid budget for example into Afghanistan. I wouldn’t wish to hold out that that was a policy that we had in mind. But collectively I think Western Europe and the United States would be looking to see what could be done in terms of trade and other things to deal with the problems in the countries of primary supply. They are growing the poppies or whatever, but it is the people who buy them and traffic in them that are really making the money.

    QUESTION:

    You were talking yesterday about the way in which Western countries block off trading options to developing countries. Do you feel in terms of your aims and flexibility within the EU, the broader question of flexibility within the EU, that you are anywhere nearer to seeing a way through the disputes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think what I have in mind in flexibility would make a great deal of difference to that particular problem. What we need to do is to try and persuade the European Union as a whole not to be quite so restrictive in some areas and I think that will progressively happen, the question is how rapidly it happens. The big problem of course is agriculture but it is by no means the only one.

    QUESTION:

    Do you feel you are any closer on flexibility?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I do. Flexibility isn’t a new invention as far as I am concerned. I spoke of the necessity of flexibility in the William and Mary Lecture over 2 years ago now and I have no doubt that it is inevitable that the European Union cannot continue in its present form. At its membership grows, it will have to be more flexible. Now the great debate is how flexible will it be and what sort of flexibility will it mean, and that is where the debate is concentrating at the moment. But I think I will be able to make progress on that, yes.

    QUESTION:

    Before Amsterdam?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I doubt the progress will be finalised until Amsterdam. It is likely, as it was at Maastricht, all to come together in the end game I would guess. So we may make some progress beforehand but I think it will only be enshrined in treaty form when the Heads of Government meet at Amsterdam.

    QUESTION:

    When you are being even-handed with the political leaders, will you also be expressing any concern about the increased role of the army in Pakistani politics and the threat that that might pose to democracy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think what I will be saying is that I look forward to the elections and a return to democratically elected government. We have said that before, there is nothing new in that, and I would expect to reiterate that in my private discussions over the next few days, yes.

    QUESTION:

    You said that you expect to see some progress on flexibility, and I realise that you are not going to reveal your negotiating hand, but does that mean any suggestion that we could accept the German position which is that they could go ahead with flexibility against our wishes, or is that enshrined in stone?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No it does not mean that. I don’t think flexibility against the wishes of member states, that is not the flexibility I have in my mind.

    QUESTION:

    Presumably you have got to wade through the flexibility minefield if you like, have you got a way of unlocking this particular problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I can see a way of unlocking it. We still, have to negotiate our way through, but I can see now how it can be done and I will endeavour to ensure that it is done in the discussions over the next few months. Rut we have to agree not just with the Presidency, we have to agree with other members, and that is why I think it is very unlikely to be finalised until we finish the treaty negotiations hopefully in Amsterdam.

    QUESTION:

    On the drugs matter, again the Americans put a lot of effort into saying that you have to tackle the problem at the end, not of supply but of demand, and penalties in the United States have been raised to swingeing levels. Is this an instance where the customer is always wrong and if so are UK penalties what they should be?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Penalties for the drug user or the drug supplier?

    QUESTION:

    Drug user.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the view we have taken all the way through, both in terms of soft drugs and hard drugs, is that we need to take a very firm hand. I don’t in any way favour the legalisation of soft drugs.

    Some people do, I think that is profoundly mistaken as policy. Most of the people who move on to hard drugs graduate to hard drugs through using soft drugs. I don’t know what the current. statistics are but I remember at one stage there were said to be over 90 percent of the people, 95 I think was the figure I saw some years ago, of people who took hard drugs graduated to hard drugs through the on-trade system of using soft drugs. So I think we have to be pretty tough on both. And as far as the drug supplier is concerned, we have increased penalties for that and I think it is entirely right that we should do so. It is a particularly evil and pernicious trade.

    QUESTION:

    On flexibility, is your proposal along the lines of that put by Wim Kok in your talks at the beginning of last week? Do you have the Dutch Presidency backing yet for your own proposal on this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Dutch Presidency will hold the ring, they won’t take a line in favour of our position or against it I don’t think. There are many shades of flexibility and I don’t propose to go into my negotiating position, I don’t think it would be prudent to do so. But I would simply make the general points which I think I will have to ask you to rest on. The European Union is becoming more flexible. Some people aren’t members of Schengen, some people have opt-outs on monetary union, some people have opt-outs on social affairs. That is going to accelerate in future, it is going to accelerate as the European Union enlarges and as we see it accelerate I think there is greater scope for countries taking part in those aspects of European Union activity that are in its own interest, and not being dragged into parts of European Union activity that are unpalatable to it. Now that is not a message that will be very easy for all our European partners to swallow, but it is the only way the European Union is going to be able to develop in the years ahead. It cannot develop with 15, 16, 20, 25 members all going ahead in the same way at the same time.

    But if you will forgive me, Phil, I don’t propose to go into details.

    QUESTION:

    You and your opponents in the British general election will exploit every opportunity you get over the coming weeks with an election coming, quite naturally. Are you worried that Pakistan’s politicians will attempt to use your visit to their own purposes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is a good reason for making sure I see each of the leaders of the main parties who have asked to see me, and I shall do so and I shall not enter into any views on their internal election.

    QUESTION:

    Do you see what you are doing in Europe as a renegotiation of British membership?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The IGC is a renegotiation, it is semantic to call it .a renegotiation or not. But if you are negotiating and you are renegotiating some things that exist already, as for example the position of the Commission and the size of the Commission, it is simply a matter of factual accuracy to call it a renegotiation. The trouble is that these terms, they become a term of art to mean things other than they really mean. This is a renegotiation because some things that exist are being renegotiated. It isn’t a renegotiation in the sense that all parts of the acquis are being torn up and thrown away.

    QUESTION:

    But presumably what you are doing on flexibility is quite a big thing, that is quite a fundamental step?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a new negotiation rather than a renegotiation, but yes it is a big thing.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Edinburgh – 11 September 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Edinburgh, held on 11th September 1992.

    GUS O’DONNELL:

    Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to Bute House. I apologise that we’re running a little late, but our very interesting discussions this morning overran. I’ll be brief. The Prime Minister will make a brief opening statement, and then the Prime Minister and Secretary of State will be happy to answer your questions. During that period, if you could, during the questions and answers, make clear names and organisations, and keep your questions just to single questions if that’s at all possible.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Fine. Thank you, Gus. I’ll just speak very briefly at the moment, and then we’ll try and get in as many of your questions as I possibly can. I’ve come back to Scotland for a raft of reasons. Firstly, because I wanted to take the opportunity of last night’s dinner at the CBI to make a speech that’s relevant, not just to Scotland, but to the whole of the United Kingdom, and our relationship particularly with the European Community, and I was grateful of the opportunity of being able to do that in Glasgow. Some of you this morning may already have seen today’s inflation figures that were published around 40 minutes ago. The Retail Price Index is down from 3.7 to 2.6, but equally relevant, I think, is that the underlying rate of inflation has fallen from 4.4% to 4.2%, so the progress on inflation is continuing, and continuing steadily. In the Seminar we’ve had this morning – the Seminar is not an end in itself. It’s just part of a continuing process of taking stock. Scottish Office Ministers have been doing that in different ways. The Policy Unit have been doing it. I have been doing it on a number of visits to Scotland, but it is very easy for me to get hold of political opinion, to find out Party opinion, and to bring together business opinion. What I was seeking to do this morning was to bring together a number of distinguished Scots who were there in their personal capacities, not because of their particular public position, but because their personal experience and knowledge made it likely they would have something worthwhile to contribute as Scottish individuals, to the debate about the constitutional arrangements for Scotland.

    I think it was a very good debate. There are a number of things within it that I propose to follow up with the individuals concerned, but it is just part of a continuing debate so I don’t propose to go into the details of what was said, and I think it is too early to draw conclusions from it. I will say it was a pretty wide ranging discussion, and in a number of areas, rather surprising points were made that I shall certainly wish to follow up with the individuals concerned, perhaps in further meetings, perhaps in correspondence, so from my point of view, it was an extremely useful occasion. Now, I am in a few moments going to have the opportunity of extending this debate. We have a large lunch here for Scottish lawyers and members of the Church, and this afternoon you might say, or may not yet know, I’m going to have a look at Holyrood House to check the arrangements for the European summit that will take place in December. So that is broadly the pattern of the day. I’m now happy to take whatever questions you may have.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you talked about surprising points there. Could you perhaps give us a little bit more information about what those points were, and why they were surprising?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the – I’m not going to give you details of them all, no, but I think there was a different perspective put on some of the constitutional questions that have been asked in Scotland in the past. There was a great deal of concern expressed by a number of people around the room about decentralisation as opposed to devolution. That applies to the private sector, of course, as well as to the public sector, and it was a point made that that affects too the lives of people in Scotland. There was also a point, I thought rather a striking point, that one of the things that took authority away from the Regions, not just Scotland, but the other Regions in the past, was nationalisation because it necessarily centred the decision-making process far away, and that was another point that emerged, and so there are a whole series of angles on the debate – some historians, a number of people in other practical professions, farmers – that were actually raised during today’s discussion.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, your opponents, your political opponents, say that this morning was largely a stunt. Do you have any particular comments to make on that? They say it was a charade, no real substitute for genuine consultation

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, they would, wouldn’t they? What would you expect them to say? If I wasn’t here talking to people from Scotland who are distinguished individuals, they would say, why am I not here doing precisely that? As I am here doing that, they say “Well, it’s a charade”. They may wonder why I haven’t invited them to have a discussion with them. Well, I know their opinion. I get their opinion weekly in Parliament. I’m aware of what it is. I’m able to consider it. I know its value, and I want to stretch out beyond that, so they are saying what I would expect them to say, but I don’t think it really matters. We will continue with consultation, and when we’ve reached conclusions we’ll announce what they are.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, David Whitton, Scottish Television. We’ve heard about the taking stock exercise almost ad nauseam, since the Election. Can you give any indication at all as to when the taking stock will cease, and you’ll come up with some solutions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, let me come back to the point I was making just now. If I produced a solution now, you’d stand up and ask me a question about how I could possibly have consulted all the people who needed to be consulted in this time, and the answer is, I can’t have done, so I’m going to go on consulting until I am sure I have got a rounded view of Scottish opinion, and when I’m certain that I have a rounded view of Scottish opinion I will discuss that with my colleagues, and we will make decisions. I can’t put a time frame to it because I don’t know how far the debate will develop and what points will arise within it, but as soon as we have our decisions we will make them, and there will be no unnecessary delay.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, Rona Campbell, Sky Television. The reduction in inflation has been minimal today. What do you have to say about that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, it’s steady and it’s consistent. It’s only two years ago that I was facing press conferences like this, and people were saying, “Well, inflation is over 10% and it’s rising”. It’s now 3.7% and it’s fallen again to 3.6%. That is progress, steady, secure progress in the right direction. We’ve now got inflation down to levels it has only touched briefly in the last quarter of a century, and what is different about this is it looks as though this is a secure reduction of underlying inflation that will be sustainable in the future, and the reason I think that is very important is really very clear-cut and very simple. If we have an inflation rate that is higher than the inflation rate of our principal competitors in Europe and beyond, then we will become uncompetitive, we will lose markets, we will lose jobs, we will lose prosperity. If, on the other hand, we have an inflation rate that is better than our principal competitors, then precisely the reverse will apply. We will gain in competitiveness, we will gain markets, we will gain jobs, and we will gain prosperity. I wish it could be done magically and quickly, but it can’t be. It’s a long and a sustained process. I think we’re making the most substantial progress in inflation that we have seen for very many years.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask, Prime Minister, on a personal basis, has your personal commitment to the distinctive nature of Scotland been strengthened by this morning’s talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes. I used the expression, and it was quoted back to me this morning. When I spoke about Europe the other day I made the point about the importance of the Nation State, and that people did not wish to lose the distinctive nature of their Nation. Well, I used that in terms of the European Community as a whole, but it is equally applicable in terms of the United Kingdom, and I see no circumstances in the future where the Scots are not going to remain distinctively Scots, the English distinctively English, the Welsh distinctively Welsh, and the Northern Irish distinctively Northern Irish, and I welcome that. I don’t wish to do anything that would damage the distinctive cultures, natures, traditions, and instincts of the component parts of the United Kingdom. What I do wish to do is to make sure in which we can show the whole of the United Kingdom, that it is a genuine partnership. It isn’t a question of saying “Scotland must stay there with England because that is good for Scotland”. That is not the argument. The point is that if any part of the United Kingdom were not an equal partner within the United Kingdom then every part of the United Kingdom will suffer. That is the point of the argument, and that is what has repeatedly to be made clear.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] from the Independent. You gauged the opinion of 14 people this morning. A constitutional referendum would slightly widen that opinion. Is that an option that you would ever consider at any time?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, what I was doing today was gathering thoughts in depth. If you have a referendum of any sort, it asks a single question, and one of the disadvantages of referenda is, you may ask a single question, but the answer may come back for a whole raft of reasons, many perhaps unconnected with the question, and I think that is what people are finding, for example, in the French referendum at the moment. What I am trying to gauge is not the answer to a simple single question. I’m trying to gauge the instincts of people, and what they believe needs to be done to enshrine and secure the distinctiveness of Scotland and its place within the Union.

    QUESTION:

    Did the spectrum of opinion among those 14, do you think, represent what you wished to find out from them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It was a broad spectrum of opinion, yes. What it was not, what it was emphatically not, was the entrenched political opinions of the political parties. I know that, and I know the opinions, and welcome the opinions that I get from the political parties and from business, but I do know that. I do need to meet distinguished individuals and find out what they need. Lots of other individuals as well. If it were possible to hold in-depth meetings with everyone in Scotland, no doubt I would learn more, but I think one has to draw a line of practicality somewhere.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you’ll be meeting The Queen at Balmoral, and discussing probably the recent events surrounding the Monarchy. How concerned are you about these events, and would you consider a Privacy Bill.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have no doubt about the conviction right across the United Kingdom about the importance of the Monarchy. It is an entrenched, enduring, and valuable part of our way of life. I have absolutely no doubt about that. I’ve nothing to add to that.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Ashdown has called for the recall of Parliament – is he likely to get a different answer to the one you gave to Mr. Smith?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I haven’t seen the letter that I gather Mr. Ashdown has sent to me. I will consider it carefully, but I see no reason to change the decision I made in the past, unless something quite compelling is in Mr. Ashdown’s letter that I don’t expect to find there, but I had better read his letter first.

    QUESTION:

    He says that British lives could be at risk, and never before he says, have British Service lives been placed at risk without Parliament being first consulted.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I’d better wait for his letter, don’t you, as I’ve just said.

    QUESTION:

    Please can we go to your proposals – I know you can’t tell us precisely what they’re going to be, but are we right to see them within the parameters of building essentially on the Scottish Grand Committee, and possibly doing something within the Scottish Office, or might they go further than that? Might they be more radical than that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think everyone is looking in individual areas to see what we might do, and I’m not going to speculate, I’m not going to have the proposals that we are beginning to build up, and they’re by no means concluded yet. Eleanor – we’re beginning to build them up as we talk to people. I’m not going to have them picked off one by one as we go through, so I’m going to respond to that when we’ve concluded our consultation.

    QUESTION:

    Referring to what you said about nationalisation because of one of the questions here is the feeling against water privatisation. Is that something you heard this morning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That came in as a side issue in the discussion in the general question of decentralisation. The point that was actually made about privatisation was a point of substance. If there is to be privatisation, the best way to do it was through the levels of individual shareholding rather than franchising. That was a particular point that was made. That was the way that it came up.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] from the Guardian. You referred to the European Nation State. Scotland, of course, is a Nation but not a State. You’ve ruled out Statehood for Scotland. Is there anything substantial below that which will give the Scots any indication that you’re taking the reform of Government seriously north of the border?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, if I were not taking it seriously north of the border, I wouldn’t be spending as much time on it as I have been doing. I wouldn’t have made the importance of the Union and Scotland’s distinctive role within it an absolutely central part of the General Election campaign. Many people were surprised when I did that and they were surprised of what happened as a result of me doing that. So, I don’t think it is a criticism that is sustainable that I’m not taking it seriously.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, [Inaudible] of The Courier in Dundee, can you make any comment on Scotland’s share of Central Government funding?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I see the stories in the press that appear every year as well but I think you’ll have to wait till the end of the public expenditure round. There are during every public expenditure round a vast amount of rumours, some related to Scotland, some related to individual departments. I think you will have to wait until the PES round is concluded.

    QUESTION:

    Will you make public what the other regions of the country get?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Oh, it’s all published, yes of course. Of course, there’s a public expenditure White Paper that is published at the end of the round and then there is typically a debate in the House of Commons and all the Budget Heads are published right the way across public expenditure for each component part of the United Kingdom. The answer to your question is, yes.

    GUS O’DONNELL:

    We have time for two more please.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible], BBC Television. You’ve made much of the principle of subsidiarity in the European argument. How far is that principle exactly the same when applied to Scotland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Subsidiarity relates to devolution of responsibilities. One of the things I think that people really have not taken on board, and this did come up of course in our discussions this morning, was the extent of administrative devolution that actually lies in the hands of the Secretary of State. He has a most remarkable amount of devolution. Now it is perfectly clear, from an opinion poll mentioned to us by one of the participants this morning, that that is not fully appreciated in Scotland. People aren’t aware of the extent of devolution in the Scottish Office and of the responsibilities of the Scottish Office and I don’t suggest that that is an answer to all the matters that we are discussing, but I think in terms of subsidiarity, it is not all that long ago that there was relatively little responsibility devolved from Whitehall to the Secretary of State in Scotland. Over recent years that has built up quite dramatically. There are areas where people would wish to see it extended of course and that is a legitimate part of debate. But, nobody on the subsidiarity principle should underestimate the amount of devolution of administrative responsibility that has gone from Westminster to the Secretary of State in Scotland.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, were you surprised by the views of the poll this morning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were some very original ideas. I cavil at the word “surprise”. I don’t think I was surprised in that sense but there were some very original thoughts and some very original ideas put forward and – no, I’m not going to – and they were put in an historical content in a number of cases as well and it may be other people will wish to express publicly what they said at this morning’s meeting, that is for them, but I don’t want to put into my words in public what they said to me in private.

    QUESTION:

    Of the 14 participants, did any openly advocate a Scottish Parliament, Assembly, any such body like that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, all the points were raised in the discussion.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you said earlier that your stand on Unionism had been vindicated by the General Election result. What do you say to the three out of four Scots who did not vote for your Party?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well you’re presupposing that all Scotland voted on one issue. And they didn’t. They patently didn’t. They voted on a whole series of different issues. This, as somebody did point out this morning, this is the first occasion for very many years, at the end of a term of Parliament, where the Government in office, whether Conservative or Labour, actually achieved more votes and a better turnout in Scotland at the end of a period of Parliament. We actually achieved that at the end of a fourth parliament. Now, I think that is something that not many people in this room would have anticipated as we came into the Election campaign. Indeed, I know that to be the case, and you know that to be the case, because we discussed that in the run-up to the General Election itself. Now I think, I know as an ex-Treasury Minister, you probably don’t expect me to count well, but there were two more questions and I think we’ve had them. But, we’ll take this last question.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] from The Herald Newspaper. Can I ask how the 14 people were selected, and whether you genuinely think that was a representative cross-section?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I’ll ask the Secretary of State. I devolved the selection to the Secretary of State. [Laughter].

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND – IAN LANG:

    They weren’t selected in a representative capacity. They were selected for their individual achievement, their distinction in their individual walks of life and they covered a range of walks of life. We had historians, journalists, we had academics, we had businessmen, we had those involved in running Government bodies and working on a range of Government bodies across the whole scene and I believe that the distinction and the quality of the contributions that they made to the discussion this morning vindicated the choice. Indeed, I think their own view about their fellow participants was altogether complimentary.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you all very much indeed. Thank you.

    GUS O’DONNELL:

    Sorry, must end it there.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Otherwise, I shall be very discourteous to Scottish lawyers and the Scottish Church, and I wouldn’t wish to do that. Thank you very much.