The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: India

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Foreign and Commonwealth Office Association Event – 29 November 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech made at an event run by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Association, held at the Locarno Suite at the Foreign Office in London on the morning of Wednesday 29th November 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m delighted to be back at the Foreign Office this morning.

    Foreign Secretary 94 days: golden age: went to war with no-one.

    My time here was too short: I wish it had been longer. Today I can speak as an individual – nothing I say should be regarded as anyone’s policy other than my own.

    We live in a world that is changing comprehensively and rapidly. There are short term imperatives that cannot be ignored: and long term issues that should not be ignored.

    Today – nothing is as it was: nothing will be as it is.

    Economically, the world is turning to the East which – for the first time since 1820 – now produces the majority of world growth. No-one should be surprised at this return to the past: for 1800 years, China had the largest economy in the world: then in the early 19th century, the West had an industrial revolution – and the East did not.

    Now, China is re-asserting the old order.

    Some people worry that China will be a threat to the West. Economically, of course, she already is. Politically, she is becoming more influential. But neither politically nor militarily is China a threat in the sense of the former Soviet Union. China’s focus will be on internal problems – widespread unemployment, pollution, water scarcity, public resentment of the growing disparity of wealth; demands for a social welfare system; the appetite for more self-government.

    Their hands are full.

    INDIA

    Behind China – perhaps 10-15 years behind – comes India, who once had nearly one-quarter of the output of the whole world.
    Today, once more, she is in the midst of an explosion of ambition and has cornered a large part of the market in knowledge-based industries; in R&D; in IT; in Bio-technology and Molecular Biology. But India’s potential for manufacturing and engineering is also enormous and she is now more cost competitive than China.

    LATIN AMERICA

    Nor is Latin America the “old” Continent of lost opportunities.

    Between 1986-96 – inflation in Latin America was 180%.

    Today – between 6-7%.

    Budget deficits and country debts are falling.

    AFRICA

    Even Africa – poor, forgotten, disregarded Africa – is benefiting from high commodity prices and growing faster than for many years.

    For the last quarter of a century, the principal engines of world growth have been the US, Japan and the EU. Soon, China, non-Japanese Asia and India will join them.

    Moreover, over the last two years, every emerging economy in the world has out-performed every mature economy. As a result, growth in the world economy is becoming better balanced than ever before – which is excellent news for future economic stability – but the price for the democracies of the West is that political power will be more widespread. As the world economy re-configures, so does politics.

    So, too, has the mode of political thinking. In the last 25 years – in the UK and the US – political thought has seemed to move away from the gravity-based centre and become more ideological.

    I am suspicious of ideology. Policy is often at its best when compromise and pragmatism are seen as virtues – not a betrayal of the true path.

    The tabloid certainty of ideologues is a fiction for the ignorant.

    Before I turn to some pressing problems, let me make some brief assertions that, hopefully, may stimulate questions.

    Britain is a medium-sized, relatively rich country, in a world whose growth is outstripping ours. To protect our future political and trading interests, alliances and diplomacy will be vital.

    I, therefore, consider it an extremely bad policy to cut our overseas representation at a time when we should be increasing it. If that seems like special pleading to this audience – then so be it. It is what I believed as Prime Minister. Budget cuts for the Foreign Service mean people. We should be increasing our profile not preparing to diminish it. I travel 4 months in every year to every part of the world and I don’t like the reductions I see. They are not in Britain’s interest.

    Secondly, international bodies.

    There is a mode of neo-thinking that dismisses the UN as if it were an irrelevance. Frankly, this is madness. If we didn’t have the UN we would have to invent it. Our British interest is to make it more efficient, eliminate its short-comings – not pander to the mode of thinking that undermines it. The UN is our servant: it can be as relevant as its Members choose to make it.

    EUROPE

    On Europe, I’m not sure what British policy is at the moment. Certainly it is in flux.

    For over 30 years – with a few exceptions such as the Single Market and Enlargement – we have been on the back foot in Europe. The growth to 25 – soon 27 – Members offers an opportunity to put that right. Our great phobia over too-deep-an integration seems less likely now.

    I think we should be looking for policies to help Europe work more efficiently – at a time when we are not under pressure over a new currency or a new Constitution (although the latter, I think, will come back in diluted form after the French Presidential Election). Greater economic competitiveness is vital for all Europe: we should be developing the case – and arguing for it.

    Some issues are very pressing now.

    Much of the Middle East is in conflict. Our task in this generation is to ensure that future generations do not have to re-live the extra-ordinary number of problems that have come together in our own time: terror, Iraq, Iran, MEPP, Afghanistan, Lebanon. North Korea is a dilemma too, but of a different nature.

    We need a dose of reality, too. We had better accept that may be no ideal solution. We may have to compromise.

    And we should recognise that every situation will require diplomacy and statesmanship to be enlisted alongside military power.

    Our preferred outcome may be un-achievable. But, sometimes, even compromise solutions are a triumph.

    It may be unfashionable – and dare not even be spoken of in some quarters – but it still seems to me that the core issue remains the Arab-Israeli conflict. The lack of a serious peace process has left a vacuum which has been filled by bloodshed and mayhem. A Peace Process – however difficult – offers hope and we badly need that. If benign neglect remains the policy, then this problem can only get worse.
    It is unprovable – of course – but I suspect that neglect of a credible peace process has done more to encourage Muslim militancy than Iraq.
    In Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to be clear about the mission, and we need an exit strategy. If I asked everyone in this room to write down what they thought that mission was, I would get a wide variety of different answers.

    Iraq is messy and getting messier. Those who predicted the coalition would be greeted as liberators on flower-strewn paths are wiser now.

    We are not – alas – remotely where we had hoped to be.

    Both casualties and civil violence are mounting especially in the 30 miles radius of Baghdad. As American soldiers clean up districts, the insurgents move to neighbouring areas. As the troops move on, the insurgents move back in, because the Iraqi armed forces cannot hold the ground. This failure to hold the territory gained, means that to some extent, policy is simply chasing its tail.

    At the same time, the Iraqi Government refuses permission for troops to enter the most violent areas, on the grounds that it would be inflammatory. This is an Alice-in-Wonderland decision, that provides a haven for militancy.

    Decisions that are fundamental to the future of Iraq are not yet made. We do not yet know how oil revenue will be shared. The boundaries of the future Federalist system are not known. The future of Kirkuk is still uncertain. The new Police Force is – to put it kindly – inefficient and with divided loyalties.

    For the average Iraqi, life is dire. Many are killed each month. Unemployment is huge. Inflation is at 70%. Electricity supplies – in Baghdad for example – fluctuate wildly during every 24 hour period: a few weeks ago it was 3-4 hours only; more recently, I believe they had the luxury of 10 hours power. All of this, in turn, creates instability – and a deep resentment of the coalition forces on the ground.

    Many Iraqis are arrested and detained a long time without charge. You will never build a democracy without rule of law and due process is badly needed. So is money. The Chancellor’s £150 million is welcome – but petty cash: General Dempsey has US$5 billion a year to spend.
    In the US and Britain there is pressure to leave.

    Yet – if we did so prematurely – our departure would create a double-dilemma: not only would it be humiliating for us to leave without stability, but if Iraq was then torn apart by civil war, the implications of a militant Islamic Government emerging scarcely need to be spelled out.

    From where we are today there are no simple solutions, but it is clear we need diplomacy and statesmanship alongside military power. And – it would help in the future – if we factored in the lessons of history.

    AFGHANISTAN

    Much of this is relevant to Afghanistan.

    To promote democracy and destroy terror is a noble mission but the justice of the cause doesn’t lessen the need for a clear-cut objective, good planning and adequate resources.

    The Afghan mission is uncertain.

    Is it a peacekeeping mission?

    Or a nation-building one?

    Is it to catch Bin Laden?

    Or to defeat the Taliban; drug barons; warlords; Iraqi infiltrators; Pakistani bandits; and the local population fearful of their poppy crop being destroyed?

    Or is it all of the above – and more?

    History tells us Afghanistan is a very tough place to be. In the Afghan Wars – during the height of the British Empire – Britain did not even come a poor second. And, more recently, between 1979-1989, the Red Army was defeated in Afghanistan: 120,000 troops, ten years on the ground – and then defeat.

    We have 5,500 soldiers in Helmand Province of whom less than 2,000 are – in the terminology – men with bayonets. Most are logistical support. We are under-resourced in men and equipment. We are bastardising helicopters to make others airworthy. We are short of armoured vehicles. Our NATO allies are slow to help and have different “rules of engagement”. This is lamentable.

    It is a woeful tale for young soldiers who – when we sent them there – were told they may not have to face a shot! Now, they find themselves in a shooting war.

    The conclusion I draw is that there must be a political as well as a military strategy. A senior British General warned recently of the danger of an aggrieved population turning back to support the Taliban.

    From our perspective of the Taliban – as a brutal force with a medieval culture – that seems absurd. But the local population see the UK and America painted each day as invading interlopers – much like the Russians over twenty years ago. It is a crude untruth – but an effective one.

    Moreover, as we destroy the poppy crop – an evil trade, but the only way of earning a livelihood for many Afghans – we need to put in place alternative sources of income. If we fail to do this, we will simply turn the population against us – and back into the arms of the Taliban.

    There is a common thread that runs through Iraq and Afghanistan: both are ideological conflicts that must be fought by intellectual as well as martial force.

    TERROR

    One continuing problem is terror. It pre-dated Iraq and it will post-date present conflicts. It has been rising for a long time – Iraq is a focus but not the cause although I suspect it has been a recruiting tool. If we are to render terror impotent – we must win the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured.

    Without an intellectual victory, there will be no lasting military victory, and no respite. If we are to safeguard our way of life we must mobilise our best instincts as well as our military might.

    The West must counter the malign way in which it is misrepresented. We will not be able to persuade the hard-line militants but we can siphon off their support. We can dry up their recruitment. We can isolate them. We can ensure our allies are active in our support, and not passive.

    All around the world, even in the grimmest of circumstances, people hope for something better. Hope for something better is the most powerful antidote to anti-Western propaganda. And to gain the allies necessary to isolate and defeat terror, we must offer that hope.

    This is not some impossible dream. We saw hope triumph when the free market defeated communism. Now it must do so again, to help democracy defeat terror.

    We have one great advantage. The on-rush of the free market is delivering material benefits to nearly every part of the world. Politics must offer hope too.

    This will mean dialogue. It will mean enlisting other nations. It will mean working with regimes of whom we strongly disapprove.

    Some say this can’t be done. I say it can. Tough – yes. Long-term – yes. But it can be done.

    Sixteen years ago, I began a dialogue with the IRA when they were still bombing Northern Ireland and the British mainland. Many in our own Party opposed this. More doubted it would ever succeed. Some said it was folly. Others were less kind.

    And yet it began a peace process that has transformed Northern Ireland.

    The same principles apply, even to the core disputes in the Middle East, and the ideological divides that are so dangerous today. Dialogue can be productive. But that dialogue cannot be with a megaphone. It must be face-to-face.

    The alternative – a lack of dialogue – enables an enemy to distort our motives and mis-represent our policies. This is folly.

    CONCLUSION

    I know it sometimes seems as if there are a vast array of insurmountable and daunting problems.

    Well, there are – but we should put all of them into context.

    None is as dangerous as the nuclear confrontation that preceded the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Today, the free market has comprehensively won the battle of philosophies that scarred most of the last century.

    Our long-term ally, America is – and will remain – the most powerful political, economic and military power in the world.

    Future generations will see the growth of democracy in Europe as a huge achievement.

    The growth of emerging economies will give more nations of the world a greater stake in a peaceful future.

    Ahead of us is a new world, with many intractable problems. We must see this new world as it really is if we are to help shape how it could be.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Sir Edward Heath Memorial Lecture – 14 November 2006

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Sir Edward Heath Memorial Lecture, held at the British Embassy in Paris on Tuesday 14th November 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:
    This is the last of a Series of Lectures to commemorate the life’s work of Sir Edward Heath. It says much about the current political mood in Britain that these Lectures are in Paris.
    Ted Heath had many passions – sailing, music, art – and, in politics, the binding together of Europe and Western relations with China. They remained consuming interests until the end of his life.
    And upon such matters he was resolute and immovable.
    Very little is immovable today. We live in a world changing more comprehensively than ever before. In politics and economics, we can no longer rely on many of the assumptions we have lived with for generations.
    Old disciplines once available to Government – exchange controls, for example – are redundant. Common standards and specifications are often international, rather than the prerogative of the Nation State. Even tax policy must bow to the need for competitiveness and, in small and medium sized economies, can be determined by the demands of footloose international capital.
    In recent years, corporate leadership has given us the global economy, the cellnet revolution, the internet and e-commerce. The landscape of investment has been changed by Private Equity and Hedge Funds.
    In the face of this revolution, Governments often fall behind, out-paced, as the private sector and the free market set the agenda.
    In the future – more than ever before – the influence of the private sector will be a key factor, not only in the prosperity of nations, but also in our way of life. As politicians diminish; the private sector grows. It is merging our tastes and shrinking our planet.
    When Kipling wrote those famous lines:
    “East is East and West is West
    And never the twain shall meet”
    he had not factored in the global market.
    Today – nothing is as it was: nothing will be as it is.
    CHINA
    Economically, the world is turning to the East which – for the first time since 1820 – now produces the majority of world growth. No-one should be surprised at this return to the past: for 1800 years, China had the largest economy in the world: then in the early 19th century, the West had an industrial revolution – and the East did not.
    Now, China is re-asserting the old order. The Chinese were making silk and pottery before the Egyptians built the Pyramids, and before the ancient Britons built Stonehenge.
    Today, China is utilising her natural advantages. She has space, and an inexhaustible supply of cheap labour. The lure of her gigantic market attracts US$ 60 billion of foreign investment each year. This combination has made her hugely competitive.
    She does not have energy – and so she is buying up oil fields, petro-chemical facilities, technology, mineral and natural resources whenever she can. She is short of many commodities and – as a by-product of her huge purchases of food, soya, rice, wheat and minerals – she is making political alliances around the non-aligned world.
    As her economy grows, so does her political influence. It is a sight I never thought I’d see: a once closed Communist economy challenging the Capitalist world.
    But not all is rosy for China. She is not El Dorado. Accepting the advantages of the free market means she must face the problems of it as well.
    Unemployment in China is huge. Hundreds of millions of workers from rural areas are migrating to the cities, in the hope of finding work. China faces serious problems of pollution, lack of water and shortage of energy.
    Ironically, even her 9½% annual growth brings political problems. Greater economic wellbeing leads to greater expectations: resentment of a growing disparity of wealth; demands for a social welfare system; an appetite for more self-government. Shanghai does not wish to be micro-directed from Beijing.
    Some people worry that China will be a threat to the West. Economically, of course, she already is. Politically, she is becoming more influential. But neither politically nor militarily is China a threat in the sense of the former Soviet Union. China’s focus will be internal for many years to come.
    Some of their problems are unexpected. The divorce rate in China has tripled as women exercise an independence they have never known before.
    Above all, China must overcome a paradox that will challenge Communist rule: to retain popular support, the Government need successful economic growth, but to obtain that they must loosen their grip on the regions. This is alien to their philosophy, but essential to China’s well-being.
    INDIA
    Behind China – perhaps 10-15 years behind – comes India, who once had nearly one-quarter of the output of the whole world.
    Today, once more, she is in the midst of an explosion of ambition and has cornered a large part of the market in knowledge-based industries; in R&D; in IT; in bio-technology and molecular biology. But India’s potential for manufacturing and engineering is also enormous and her employment costs are now more favourable than China. Within twenty years or so, she is likely to be one of the four biggest economies in the world.
    Although China and India are the biggest single ingredient in the economic shift from West to East they are not alone. Japan is an established economic giant but all SE Asia is growing.
    There is even a North-South movement as Latin America ceases to be the “old” Continent of lost opportunities.
    Between 1986-96 – inflation in Latin America was 180%. Today – between 6-7%.
    Budget deficits and country debts are falling. Prospects are rising.
    Even Africa – poor, forgotten, disregarded Africa – is benefiting from high commodity prices and growing faster than for many years.
    Other countries, too, are in phoenix mode.
    RUSSIA
    Politically, Russia under Putin is regressing. Economically, she has problems with corruption, with the Russian mafia, with bureaucracy, but business performance is strong with many niche opportunities for investors – if the right partner can be found.
    The reason for economic growth in – by our standards – a lawless background, is that Russia is blessed with natural resources. She:
    – Can lift as much oil as Saudi Arabia;
    – Has one-third of the world’s supply of natural gas; and
    – By any yardstick – has enormous scope for future growth.
    There are concerns about internal democracy.
    – President Putin has re-claimed too much power for the Kremlin.
    – The judicial system is neither swift, just nor independent.
    – The free press has all but disappeared.
    I am, in no sense, a Cold War warrior, but we do no favours to Russia if we overlook this authoritarian, anti-democratic trend.
    Externally, Ukraine and Georgia might also welcome the West letting her disapproval be known, so that Russia is aware there will be a price to pay if she slips back into her old ways. But – even as we watch political developments – it is time to recognise that the “New” Russia is not the “Old” Soviet Union.
    Even within the EU, there is a drift from the mature democracies of Western Europe to the new European nations. It is easy to see why: the cost of a skilled engineer in Slovakia or Romania is 14,000 Euros a year, whereas in Bonn, Paris or London it is 92,000 Euros a year.
    The free market has many virtues – but it is ruthless in pursuit of competitiveness, and mature economies must recognise this.
    Let me pull all this together:
    For the last quarter of a century, the principal engines of world growth have been the US, Japan and the EU. Soon, China, non-Japanese Asia and India will join them.
    And, added to the economic mix, is a new ingredient: over the last two years, every emerging economy in the world has out-performed every mature economy. As a result, growth in the world economy is becoming better balanced than ever before – which is excellent news for future economic stability – but the price for the democracies of the West is that political power will be more widespread.
    POLITICAL CHANGE
    We can see this new phenomenon taking shape. As the world economy re-configures, so does politics. The political map of the world is fluid.
    The battle between Communism and the Free Market has been comprehensively won.
    But the conflict between competing religious ideologies – so long dormant – is re-engaged. Radicals wish to unite Islam and pit that religion against the rest of the world.
    Much of the Middle East is in dis-array, as an extraordinary number of problems have come together in our own time: Oil; Terror; Iraq; Iran; MEPP; Afghanistan; Lebanon.
    Although these problems may seem insoluble – they are not. But it is essential to focus on the objectives we seek and then set out a route to achieve them.
    Every situation will require diplomacy and statesmanship to be enlisted alongside military power.
    We need a dose of reality, too. We had better accept there may be no ideal solutions. We may have to compromise.
    Our preferred outcome may be un-achievable. But, sometimes, even compromise solutions are a triumph.
    IRAQ
    In Iraq – and Afghanistan – we need to be clear about the mission, and we need an exit strategy. If I asked everyone in this room to write down what they thought that mission was, I would get a wide variety of different answers.
    Iraq is messy and getting messier. Those who predicted the coalition would be greeted as liberators on flower-strewn paths are wiser now. If they had known their history, they would have been much wiser much earlier on. We are not – alas – remotely where we had hoped to be.
    Both casualties and civil violence are mounting especially in the 30 miles radius of Baghdad. As American soldiers clean up districts, the insurgents move to neighbouring areas. As those troops move on, the insurgents re-occupy the area, because the Iraqi armed forces cannot hold the ground. This failure to hold the territory gained, means that policy is simply chasing its tail.
    At the same time, the Iraqi Government refuses permission for troops to enter the most violent areas, on the grounds that it would be inflammatory. This is an Alice-in-Wonderland decision, that merely provides a haven for militancy.
    Decisions that are fundamental to the future of Iraq are not yet made. We do not yet know how oil revenue will be shared. The boundaries of the future Federalist system are not known. The future of Kirkuk is still uncertain. The new Police Force is – to put it kindly – inefficient, and with divided loyalties.
    For the average Iraqi, life is dire. Many are killed each month. Unemployment is huge. Inflation is at 70%. Electricity supplies – in Baghdad for example – fluctuate wildly during every 24 hour period: a couple of weeks ago it was 3-4 hours only; this past week, I believe they had the luxury of 10 hours power. All of this, in turn, creates instability – and a deep resentment of the coalition forces on the ground.
    The situation is full of ironies. The Iraqi Government is weak and unstable. It is possible that only the presence of the coalition prevents a coup.
    And yet – to buy domestic popularity – the Government may be tempted to tell the coalition to leave.
    But such a departure would create a double-dilemma: not only would it be humiliating for the coalition to be asked to leave, but if they did so, and Iraq was torn apart by civil war, the implications of a militant Islamic Government emerging scarcely need to be spelled out.
    From where we are today there are no simple solutions, which is why I spoke of the need for diplomacy and statesmanship alongside military power. And – as we consider policy – we should factor in the lessons of history.
    AFGHANISTAN
    All of this is relevant to Afghanistan. The catalyst for democracy’s response to terror was the attack on New York five years ago.
    To promote democracy and destroy terror is a noble mission, but the justice of the cause doesn’t lessen the need for a clear-cut objective, good planning and adequate resources.
    In Iraq, the most dangerous place is Baghdad, where American forces take the lead. In Afghanistan, it is Helmand and Kandahar Provinces, where British and Canadian forces are in the front line.
    The Afghan mission, as seen from the UK, is uncertain.
    Is it a peacekeeping mission?
    Or a nation-building one?
    Is it to catch Bin Laden?
    Or to defeat the Taliban; drug barons; warlords; Iraqi infiltrators; Pakistani bandits; and the local population fearful of their poppy crop being destroyed?
    Or is it all of the above – and more?
    History tells us Afghanistan is a very tough place to be. In the Afghan Wars – during the height of the British Empire – Britain did not even come a poor second. And, more recently, between 1979-1989, the Red Army was defeated in Afghanistan: 120,000 troops, ten years on the ground – and then retreat – as they were beaten back to Moscow. And this was when Russia was still, herself, a superpower.
    A senior British General warned recently of the danger of an aggrieved population turning back to support the Taliban.
    From our perspective of the Taliban – as a brutal force with a medieval culture – that seems absurd. But the local population see the UK, America and Canada painted each day as invading interlopers – much like the Russians over twenty years ago. It is a crude untruth – but an effective one.
    Moreover, as we destroy the poppy crop – an evil trade, but the only way of earning a livelihood for many Afghans – we need to put in place alternative sources of income. If we fail to do this, we will simply turn the population against us – and back into the arms of the Taliban.
    There is a common thread that runs through Iraq and Afghanistan: both are ideological conflicts that must be fought by intellectual as well as martial force.
    TERROR
    If we are to lift the curse of terror from the next generation – or, more realistically, render it impotent – we must win the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured.
    Without an intellectual victory, there will be no lasting military victory, and no respite. If we are to protect our way of life we must mobilise our best instincts as well as our military might.
    The West must counter the malign way in which it is misrepresented. We will not be able to persuade the hard-line militants but we can siphon off their support. We can dry up their recruitment. We can isolate them. We can do more to encourage our allies to be more active in our support.
    All around the world, even in the grimmest of circumstances, people hope for something better. Hope for something better is the most powerful antidote to anti-Western propaganda. And to gain the allies necessary to isolate and defeat terror, we must offer that hope.
    This is not some impossible dream. We saw hope triumph when the free market defeated communism. Now it must do so again, to help democracy defeat terror.
    We have one great advantage. The on-rush of the free market is delivering material benefits to nearly every part of the world. Politics must offer hope too.
    This will mean dialogue. It will mean enlisting other nations. It will mean working with regimes of whom we strongly disapprove.
    Some say this can’t be done. I say it can. Tough – yes. Long-term – yes. But it can be done.
    Sixteen years ago, I began a dialogue with the IRA when they were still bombing Northern Ireland and the British mainland. Many opposed this. More doubted it would ever succeed. Some even said it was folly.
    And yet it began a peace process that has transformed Northern Ireland.
    The same principles apply today, even to the core disputes in the Middle East, and the ideological divides that are so dangerous. Dialogue can be productive. But it must be dialogue – not monologue – and it cannot be with a megaphone.
    The alternative – a lack of dialogue – enables our motives to be distorted, and our policies to be mis-represented. It would be folly to allow that to happen.
    CONCLUSION
    The political and economic challenges arising from the Near and Far East are more complex and far-reaching than any we have faced before. They will not fade away.
    I’ll read you a poem you may know and I learned as a child:
    For the want of a nail the shoe was lost.
    For the want of a shoe the horse was lost.
    For the want of a horse the rider was lost.
    For the want of a rider the message was lost.
    For the want of a message the battle was lost.
    For the want of a battle the war was lost.
    For the want of a war the kingdom was lost.
    And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
    Benjamin Franklin, 1758
    It is the classic illustration of how a chain of events can follow on – one from another.
    If that was true in the world of Benjamin Franklin, how much more true it is in the integrated global world of today.
    Our task in this generation is to look at our world with a critical and honest eye and see how it is – so we can try and shape how it could be.
    We have the ability to do so. Only time will tell whether we have the wisdom – and the will – to channel that knowledge into policies – to safeguard our future.

  • Banquet in Honour of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh – 11 March 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at a banquet in honour of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, held at the Banqueting House on Tuesday 11th March 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and Gentlemen

    May I welcome all of you here this evening.

    We’re here as part of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the independence of India and Pakistan. On 15 August it will be fifty years since the last Viceroy of India hauled down his flag and new independent countries were born.

    On 4 February next year Sri Lanka also celebrates 50 years of independence.

    And we are here tonight to honour Bangladesh as well.

    Looking back over the last 50 years, all these countries have faced many challenges. Today, they have much to be proud of. In all of them – the anniversaries will be celebrated with enthusiasm for what has been achieved and optimism for the future.

    We share that. So we will also celebrate them here. Some might find that odd. I don’t. And I’ll tell you why.

    Britain’s relationship with the sub-continent goes back four hundred years. It goes back to when the first British travellers gazed in awe at the magnificence and power of the Moghal empire.

    The long years of the Raj followed. Views on that period are bound to differ. Tonight is not an occasion to dwell on it. We now have a modern partnership with the countries of South Asia. A partnership successive governments in all our countries have fostered and encouraged.

    Upon what is it based – this partnership? It’s based on the values we hold in common: the values of;

    – democracy

    – parliamentary government

    – the rule of law

    – freedom of speech

    – respect for human rights.

    Democracy may have sometimes seemed a fragile plant in South Asia. But I believe it has firmly taken root. Pakistan and Bangladesh have had some turbulent times over the last year. But ultimately people have decided at the ballot box who should govern them. And I still marvel at the scale of the Indian general election last year, when a staggering 343 million people voted in the largest democratic exercise the world has ever seen.

    English provides us with a common language with which to express these common values. It binds us together. As does our membership of a Commonwealth that has become more important as it has modernised.

    But the most important bonding is the deep well of friendship built up over generations. It is a well that has never run dry over political differences. And never run dry in half a century of rapid change.

    Some of those who took part in the events of 50 years ago would, I suspect, have been surprised by the depth and breadth of the links between the United Kingdom and South Asia today.

    These links are being made and remade every day. By businessmen. By students. By tourists. And by people visiting their families and friends.

    – There are more than three thousand Indian students studying in Britain. Literally, thousands more come from Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

    – Fifty thousand British tourists visit Sri Lanka every year – more than from any other country. Another one hundred and eighty thousand go to India.

    – Twenty-seven thousand British business people visit India every year.

    These are just a few of the illustrations of the richness and vigour of the connections between Britain and South Asia today.

    Nowhere are these connections more visible than among community life here in Britain. You only have to look round this room to see what a contribution people from South Asia make – today – to life in this country.

    From the entrepreneur striving to make his business succeed, to the cricketer teaching us, cricket’s inventors, just how well it can be played, to members of the Houses of Parliament, there is a South Asian flavour to modern British life. A flavour that adds to the vitality and enterprise of this country. That enriches its culture and national life. I warmly welcome it.

    Those of you here representing the arts make a particularly distinctive contribution to the cultural scene in this country. From achievements in music, in painting, and in literature to achievements on the, screen, on the playing field, and in cooking – British culture would be poorer without you.

    But the contribution of the South Asian community in Britain goes beyond new ideas. It also strengthens the values that characterise the best in British society. Tolerance. Respect for the law. Enterprise. The efforts of ordinary, decent people to build their family life and do their best for their children.

    The fruits of these efforts are already obvious. Young Asians are corning through the education system in large numbers. Their educational achievements outstrip other groups.

    They get the best exam results in schools. They are maintaining that commitment at university. They provide an example and encouragement to others.

    Britain’s Asian communities have produced some of our most successful entrepreneurs. There are over 100 Asian millionaires in the UK. I hope there’ll be many more. So too, I suspect, do you! South Asian talent and business flair is the bedrock of many British businesses.

    I don’t say that everyone who has come to this country has had an easy time. They haven’t. For some, the going has been hard. But what I do say is this. The ledger is in credit and the British people value what South Asia has brought us.

    This is why we celebrate these anniversaries. We wish to honour the contribution South Asians make to British life. And this is why we want to strengthen further our relationship with the countries of the sub-continent.

    The political relationship has long been central. Although inevitably we have had our ups and downs with individual countries, our political links with each of the countries concerned are in many ways closer than they have ever been.

    But relations have now taken on an extra dimension. Over the last few years, we have transformed the economic relationship between Britain and South Asia. Trade, in both directions, is booming and is now worth over four billion pounds a year.

    Let me give you an example. In 1993 I visited India. P V Narasimha Rao, who was then the Indian Prime Minister and I launched what we called the Indo-British Partnership. It struck a chord.

    Business took up the challenge. Trade between Britain and India doubled in just four years. And two hundred new Indo-British joint ventures have been formed every year since then.

    And it is not just with India that we have been so successful. Across South Asia, British firms are leading investors and partners.

    – In Pakistan, National Power are the largest investor in a joint project that will provide 13 per cent of Pakistan’s power capacity.

    – When I was in Dhaka in January, I witnessed the signing of Cairn Energy’s one hundred and fifty million US dollar contract with Petrobangla. Sales over the next 15 years should be worth one billion US dollars.

    – Sri Lanka is now the leading foreign supplier for Marks and Spencer. Many of these goods come from joint ventures between British and Sri Lankan companies.

    At the same time, South Asian firms are increasingly looking to Britain for suppliers and markets.

    They do so because they can find something more in Britain. They can find the enterprise capital of Europe. They can find access to the European Union’s Single Market. And they can find a country that is genuinely open to the outside world – open to her old friends and modern partners in South Asia.

    I was last in South Asia in January, when I visited India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. It’s a continent that I love. There is such richness, such diversity, such vibrancy that one can never tire of it.

    As Prime Minister on such visits, one has to wear many hats – metaphorically and literally. Some of them are more fetching than others? Have got more publicity than others! But it was striking to talk with South Asian leaders about economic reform.

    This may sound like a dry subject. But I believe that it’s the single most important issue for the people of South Asia. We have learnt by experience that to compete in the modern world you have to change. This can be uncomfortable. But change that is made for a purpose is worthwhile.

    All the South Asian leaders I met stressed, again and again, that their purpose was to realise their country’s potential. Their political potential. Their economic potential. And, above all, their human potential – by improving the quality of life of their people.

    That is why they are committed to opening markets, to removing red tape, and to welcoming investors.

    And that is why we in Britain are committed to responding. UK firms have the expertise, the experience and the will to help the economic transformation of South Asia.

    The UK’s development assistance programme is also geared to helping change. We are working with the countries of South Asia to develop their human resources, through better education and health. We are cooperating to create the conditions needed for increased private investment. And I saw for myself in Bangladesh how Britain is helping to stimulate entrepreneurial skills by giving micro-credit to small and new businesses.

    Each country faces different problems. They are at different stages.

    I welcome the latest Indian budget as an important step on the road of fiscal reform. India can also think of the opportunities if infrastructure bottlenecks are removed. If closed business sectors are given the freedom to serve their countrymen. If, for example, the insurance sector is opened up to investment.

    The new government in Pakistan can think of what can be achieved by pushing on with liberalisation and fiscal reform.

    And Bangladesh and Sri Lanka can think of their potential if they make a success of privatisation.

    Make no mistake. All are facing in the right direction. Towards open markets and liberal economies, where people are free to exploit their energy and enterprise. It is the direction that we in Britain are facing too. And because we all face the same way, our partnership has real meaning.

    For India and Pakistan this year is the fiftieth of their existence as modern states. We know they’ll celebrate. It’s their party. But we would like to join in. To demonstrate that we are old friends. And modern partners.

    I hope too that this year will see greater partnership between India and Pakistan. The prospect of talks between Nawaz Sharif and Deve Gowda is very welcome.

    As I speak, the Royal Yacht Britannia is in Bombay, after a very successful visit to Karachi. With her are the Lord Mayor of London and many British business people, including representatives of the insurance companies who have generously sponsored this occasion. Anthony Nelson, the Minister of Trade, who is here this evening, will jet off tomorrow morning to join them.

    The British Council is putting on an exciting programme of cultural events funded jointly by India, Pakistan: and British companies.

    In India, the highlight will be an exhibition of treasures from the British Museum. entitled “The Enduring Image”.

    In Pakistan, another exhibition “Traditions of Respect” will celebrate the contribution of the Islamic world to British culture.

    I know there will also be many cultural events in this country. Some will form part of the programme of events the Government is organising to mark these anniversaries.

    But I am delighted that there will also be many more unofficial events across the country:- Banquets. Festivals. Music, dance and drama. Sporting events. Exhibitions and displays in museums, galleries and historic houses. All reflect the friendship of our countries, the vitality of our communities, and the creative value of their meeting. All are a demonstration of the energy and enthusiasm of people m this country, for the countries of South Asia.

    Finally, as 1997 draws to a close, two events will symbolise our enduring friendship.

    Her Majesty The Queen will visit the sub-continent in October to wish India and Pakistan well in their anniversary year. And all of us – Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India and the United Kingdom – will participate in the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh this autumn.

    In celebrating the last fifty years, we celebrate a shared history, shared values and a truly modern partnership. And above all we can look forward to a shared future in which our roads, our cultures, our interests will be shared as never before. I wish the countries of South Asia every success over the next fifty years. I am sure they will achieve it.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Anniversary of Indian and Pakistan Independence – 18 January 1997

    Below is Mr Major’s speech at a rally to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Independence of India and Pakistan. The speech was given at The Commonwealth Institute on 18th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Britain – The Best Place in The World

    I’ve just returned from a long visit with British businessmen to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    Everywhere I went the welcome for Britain was very warm.

    Today, many people with an affection for those nations are gathered here.

    What brings us together?

    The same beliefs, the same hopes – to see Britain prosperous, stable, secure.

    A tolerant, civil nation, where everyone has the opportunity to make a success of life.

    We don’t wish to see people boxed into compartments or pigeonholed to fit into plans, according to their colour or sex or wealth. That isn’t the kind of society I care for. It isn’t the kind of society we’re building.

    We should relish the fact that every person is unique, with their own talents and abilities. Diversity is a strength and we should play to it, so that everyone can make the most of their skills.

    Some will do better than others – that’s a fact of life. Some will need help – and a Conservative Government will be there to help them. That’s a fact of life too. But all should have the same opportunities and choices.

    My aim is to make Britain the best place in the world to live.

    Is that a pipe-dream? We aren’t the same size as some countries and don’t have the raw materials or climate of others.

    But we do have something quite unique. We have our history. Our instincts. Our national character. We have, above all, the British people.

    And thanks to their hard work, Britain is in an enviable economic position.

    We’re enjoying growing prosperity – and, as we look forward, we can expect hard work to be rewarded with higher living standards, year in year out.

    The present prospects are very bright.

    And stability and prosperity are already giving even more people the opportunity to get ahead in life, the chance to realise their dreams and ambitions. Ahead of us is opportunity for all – irrespective of background.

    All of us here today share values that are instinctively Conservative. Some of you – or your parents or grand parents – have risked everything by leaving your country of birth and settling here. Your livelihood depended on your enterprise, your determination to come to Britain to give you and your families a better life.

    If you say to a gathering of British citizens whose fathers or grandfathers came from Asia or the Caribbean, “Look, we’ve all done a lot better than we ever expected, and life together is a happier experience than anyone would have supposed thirty years back”, you are bound to be accused of complacency.

    But I am going to say that.

    I believe the general record since the sixties is a good one – a record of living together, getting along with one another, of general decency. It utterly contradicts the fears which were so widespread in the late 1950s and 1960s.

    Many decent people feared racial tension – that there’d be riots, killings and endemic hatred, a trench war between dark and light-skinned peoples.

    The press was heavy with speculative articles about the rage pent up and waiting for explosion, the backlash which was so certain to come. Commentators deplored racism while waiting excitedly upon events.

    But the great trench war between the races never happened.

    Why is it those fears were so wrong?

    I believe it was thanks to the fundamental goodwill and decency of the British people. And politicians recognised that and built on it.

    Plenty of perfectly decent people were unsure about whether actual formal legislation on racial equality, the actual out-lawing of the colour bar, was a wise move.

    They feared the backlash and doubted the possibility of making good by law. That’s a respectable point of view, but also quite wrong. Public goodwill and decency existed Out there in the country, but had to be given a lead. If freedom includes freedom to run a colour bar, and bureaucracy forbids colour bars as evil, then that bureaucracy is right and that freedom is wrong.

    Politicians agreed on how to tackle the problems. We had fine leadership on the race issue from many in all parties.

    The best expression of the consensus is – not surprisingly to me – in the words of lain Macleod. Listen to what he told a Conservative Conference:

    “I believe quite simply in the brotherhood of man – men of all races, of all colours, of all creeds. I think it is this that must be in the centre of our thinking. .”

    Macleod went on:

    “And this is coming. There are foolish men who will deny it, but they will be swept away…”

    And they were swept away – not by legislation alone but by the British people. It was the British character that won the day. Civil, decent and tolerant.

    Society is an unimaginably complex thing made up of little threads and small actions. It works through a blurring of sharp edges, a million acts and omissions. And the acts and omissions of most people in recent decades are ones which imply acceptance and tolerance.

    Yes, tolerance. Tolerance is the real test of civilisation. Most of the relationships between people turn upon tolerance. It’s tolerance that confounded the forecasters of doomsday.

    “Oh,” says smart, knowing opinion. “Is that all? Tolerance? What a banal commonplace, little thing.” Yes, indeed. It is so banal, so commonplace this tolerance, that it is Alpha and Omega. It is so little a thing that if it disappears, men die.

    If you disbelieve me look at Srebrenica. That’s a warning of what happens when people no longer tolerate other religions or values or races. Tolerance had disappeared. Civility vanished.

    Civility goes far beyond politeness. It’s a breakwater against first thoughts and worst instincts. It inhibits anger, pulls away from prejudice. Civil people acknowledge other people – they respect their cultures and traditions.

    To take a concrete example, I think most civil people would share my concern about an approach some have to Islam.

    If you were to play the game of word association – you know, think of a word, then follow with the first next word you associate it with – I fear that I know what would too often follow the word “Islamic”.

    It would be “fundamentalism”.

    Now where all extremism or militancies do occur – Christian, Moslem or Political – I am going to be against them.

    But “Islamic fundamentalism” – how glibly it trips off the tongue. It comes out for all the world as if there were no other things which go with “Islamic”.

    But there are. And we must resist the temptation to judge a race or religion by its least worthy members.

    Because what is salient about Muslims – just as it is about Sikhs and Hindus – in Britain is that they respect the law, secular and religious, that they cherish the family and bring children up by earnest moral standards, that they are good citizens.

    They were attracted to Britain by our values – values that have brought people here for centuries. The Flemings, Huguenots, Jews.

    There’s a new, twentieth century word to describe our kind of society. Multi-cultural. I prefer a different word – cosmopolitan. Our trading history has, in every sense, broadened our horizons and outlook. They brought with them skills, enterprise, innovation.

    Their background did not stand in the way of success. They melded into the landscape of British society – and long may that continue.

    Today, neither race, nor colour, nor religion, nor background must stand in our way.

    If the man in the same office, cursing the same computer when it goes down, following the same football team, grumbling about the same café menu, has a different complexion, then it’s just about the only thing different about him. His job, his family, his hopes, his fears, his allegiances, his experiences are often otherwise all the same.

    Life is lived, people join, people belong.

    Darkness, lightness – that’s a difference losing significance with every day crossed off the calendar.

    A quick glimpse at Britain today and you cannot miss the tremendous contribution the ethnic community makes to our country. From footballers to lawyers, businessmen to pop stars, newsreaders to doctors – they’re all adding to and sharing in Britain’s success.

    And their success has come from hard work, enterprise, innovation. Making the most out of opportunities that come their way. That’s the kind of nation we Conservatives believe in and are creating.

    The Challenge Ahead

    I don’t wish to paint a picture of utopia. There is much still to be done. I don’t pretend that the prospects for the young black man in Brixton is yet as open to talent as it is to the young white man in the Home Counties. It clearly isn’t.

    But we must try and make it so.

    Jobs, crime, education – these aren’t purely racial issues – and no purely racially based solution would solve them. But many of these problems do bear disproportionately on ethnic minorities; unemployment rates are significantly worse for all ethnic minority teenagers. And black households are twice as likely to be burgled as white households.

    The institutional barriers of racism and prejudices that stood in people’s way might have begun to crumble. But we still have more to do to entrench and broaden opportunity.

    Politically correct policies won’t achieve this. No man or woman wants to succeed because of their colour. They wish to succeed on merit.

    Few things would inflame racial tension more than trying to bias systems in favour of one colour – a reverse discrimination that fuels resentment. An artificial bias would damage the harmony we treasure. Equality under the law – yes; equality of opportunity and reward – yes. These promote harmony.

    Policy must be colour blind – it must just tackle disadvantage. Faced by British citizens, whatever their background might be.

    Education

    But how do you achieve equality of opportunity?

    It begins with education.

    Over the last few years we’ve opened up our schools so parents – and taxpayers – can see how well they’re performing. That hasn’t always made comfortable reading. Too often bad schools are found where we need good schools the most – in areas where education is a lifeline of hope.

    Ironically, the councils whose schools score the poorest results are Labour controlled – the party that says education is their ‘priority’. In many of their areas it’s so bad it needs to be made a priority. Their politicians make the most of our reforms, enjoying the choice we’ve given them, but seek to deny it to other parents, leaving them to suffer the shoddy teaching their children have left behind. Equality of opportunity rings hollow coming from their lips.

    We’re helping those children who suffer from such education with practical policies. Testing children on the basic skills, and giving parents the results. Inspecting schools on a regular basis. And, when it’s really necessary, closing down failing schools.

    If young people aren’t able to read, write and add up from an early age, their chances of getting a rewarding job suffer a crippling blow.

    That’s why literacy is so crucial.

    We’re setting up literacy centres to pinpoint our efforts on those who need help most. On top of the tens of millions of pounds we’re already spending to help pupils who don’t have English as their first language, this will be another lever to raise standards.

    But that isn’t enough – we need to promote success and give excellence the freedom to flourish.

    Not every child is the same and they shouldn’t be forced to fit into a rigid education system.

    Every parent wants their child to be given the best education – and they’re the ones who know those children the best.

    So they should be in the driving seat of deciding what kind of education their children receive.

    Specialist schools, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and – yes, if parents want them – grammar schools. This is the choice we’re opening up.

    Creating a system that gives children an education that opens up a world of enjoyment, pleasure and potential. An education that prepares them for today’s modem hi-tech workplace, where getting a job becomes more competitive by the day.

    Jobs

    Almost alone in Europe, we’re enjoying falling unemployment. Britain is bucking the trend in spectacular fashion.

    This month, unemployment fell by 45,000 – down to its lowest rate for nearly six years.

    Over the last four years, Britain has created 900,000 extra jobs – more than France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined.

    Put it another way, since 1992 we’ve created the equivalent of two jobs every working minute – over 100 jobs every working hour.

    We’ve given people the tools – lower taxes, stable prices, a competitive edge – and they’ve created more jobs. Without the costly burdens of red tape and regulation that are weighing down European companies, British enterprise is winning the day.

    I know how tempting some of the policies of our political opponents might sound. New rights, new conditions, new minimum wages. But forcing employers to pay more to employ people means they won’t be able to take on new workers – but might end up sacking existing ones.

    And who will suffer? The young, the unemployed.

    Youth unemployment is 29% in France and 43% in Spain. That’s not a coincidence. Both countries have a minimum wage.

    Unemployment is not the kind of future I want for our young people – and it’s them I’m thinking of when I say ‘no’ to the minimum wage and Social Chapter. Why copy the mistakes other countries are making when things are going so well here?

    Unemployment is falling right across Britain – in every region, including the traditional employment wilderness of Northern Ireland – it’s now below 10%. That hasn’t happened for over 17 years. Some people used to point at certain areas and say they were no-go areas for new jobs. We’ve shown that doesn’t have to be so.

    Like the inner cities, where people need opportunities the most, but where it’s hardest to get a foot on the ladder.

    I was a councillor in an inner city once. I saw the problems people faced.

    And all too often socialist thinking made matters worse. It was well-intentioned – but wrong. Generations of wrong-headed policies in the inner cities drove away jobs with punitive business rates.

    The ambitious and the enterprising were driven from the inner cities by municipal controls and union driven services.

    Bad local government policy shut out new business with political correctness and impossible demands and self serving red tape. And the minority groups in our country often suffered most from this policy failure.

    But now look what’s happening.

    Bricks and mortar, jobs and hope are flooding back.

    Government-backed projects should create or preserve 600,000 new jobs, improve or complete more than a quarter of a million homes, and help over 92,000 businesses start up. Altogether, some £4 billion will be available over the next three years for local re-generation.

    Concrete proof that freeing enterprise, trusting private business, attracting investment spells new jobs, new opportunities, new hope.

    There’s more to do.

    Bring in more private capital. Break up monolithic council estates. Encourage more home ownership. Create more jobs. Build houses on a human scale.

    It’s a massive task. One I care about. But it can be done and we will bring in plans to do it.

    The people Labour have deserted, we’re helping – not with soundbites and smiles, but sound policies and substance. Labour’s heartlands reinvigorated by Conservative policies.

    Law and Order

    These policies aim not just to make people better off, but feel more secure.

    Safe streets and secure homes should not be a priority only for those in the leafy suburbs. Living free from fear is something every person should be able to enjoy. 5,000 more police constables by 1999, 10,000 more closed circuit televisions, tougher sentences for persistent offenders – these are practical policies to fight crime that has blighted too many communities.

    I spoke earlier about tolerance and civility. Sadly, there’s a small minority who do not share those values. They incite racial hatred and violence.

    That’s why we’ve given the police greater powers to deal with racially inflammatory material.

    But all too often, it’s verbal abuse that causes distress. Continuous snide, offensive language, designed to hurt. So we’ve strengthened the penalties available for intentional harassment and our new proposals will make the law stronger still.

    I’ve never been a victim of racial discrimination, but any decent person would agree that those kind of acts are utterly repugnant in a civilised nation like Britain. They have no place in our country – and never in our Party.

    The Conservative Party/Peroration

    The Party I joined is one that governed for the whole nation – because it represented the whole nation. You can’t tie a label to the Conservative Party. To me, that’s part of its attraction.

    We should remind people more often that the Conservative Party is an inclusive party – open to all.

    Its roots are sunk deep across the country. It must always be so.

    We have always had an alliance with people from all walks of life. That must always be so too.

    So to those of you here today and many beyond, I say that if you share our beliefs you are welcome.

    If you share our love of country, you have a place in our Party – in our associations, in our councils, in our Parliament.

    As an inclusive Party, we seek to build an inclusive Britain.

    We know how far we’ve come. We know what still needs to be done. We know how to do it.

    And if the work can be finished, we can then truly say “Britain is the best place in the world to live”.

  • PMQT – 14 January 1997

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th January 1997. Michael Heseltine responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Ainger: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is returning from an official visit to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

    Mr. Ainger: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen the results of a survey conducted by the Health Visitors Association showing that 2 million British children are malnourished, that one third of health visitors are dealing with childhood tuberculosis and that rickets has returned to plague hundreds of British children? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the association that those appalling effects on health are a direct result of family poverty and deprivation, and does he agree with me that any Government who are able to recreate the social conditions of the 19th century at the end of the 20th do not deserve to serve into the 21st?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The last occasion on which we saw some of the social conditions of the 19th century was in 1979, when the winter of discontent characterised the activities of the last Labour Government. The survey to which the hon. Gentleman refers has been drawn to my attention and I reject its findings.

    Mr. Richards: Has my right hon. Friend seen today’s edition of the Western Mail? Its front page states that the water and electricity giant Hyder is to move into the gas supply market, which would reduce prices by some £40 a year for the consumer. Does he agree that, if there were a windfall tax, Welsh consumers would be robbed of price cuts, and Labour’s policies would yet again end in tears?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the dangers of imposing a windfall tax on the people of Wales. He would, however, also be right to point to the dangers for a large number of people–pensioners and employees–who would suffer from the punitive effects of such a tax; although it must be said that, according to recent evidence, no such tax could be effectively levied. That leaves the question, “Where is the money coming from to fund Labour’s extravagant expenditure plans?”

    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Prime Minister accept the verdict of the British Medical Association that the health service is facing its worst crisis for 10 years?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is difficult for the hon. Lady to suggest, when we have just announced £1.6 billion extra expenditure, that there is a crisis in the health service. The fact is that 25,000 patients a day are being treated in the health service. Nothing does more damage to the morale of those who work in it, and provide excellent service, than the endless sniping of the Labour party, which is obviously oblivious to the fact that for most of its life the health service has been safe in the hands of Tory Governments.

    Mrs. Taylor: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realise that the picture that he paints bears little resemblance to the everyday experiences of ordinary families in Britain? His complacency is an insult to the families of women in Leeds and London who died in the past few days because intensive care beds were not available. Can he not understand that his failure to give a serious answer to serious questions proves beyond doubt that the health service is not safe in Tory hands?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: As we are spending £724 for every man, woman and child in Britain, perhaps the hon. Lady will explain how things were better when it was only £444 in 1978-79, but there is a serious point behind what the hon. Lady raises: the need to provide intensive care beds. That is why, in December, we set up a national register for intensive care beds so that, by a single call, doctors can find out where they are–[Interruption.] I would have thought that the Labour party would be interested in the health service. As the Labour party and the whole House will know, the demand for hospital beds can literally double in a day and if the Labour party is suggesting that, in every hospital, we should keep beds empty all the time for fear that there may be an emergency, it is important that it should say that so that we can understand the lost opportunities for a large number of patients who rely on those beds.

    Mrs. Taylor: Surely everyone in Britain has the right to expect the national health service to be able to provide emergency, life-saving treatment when it is necessary. Is not the problem with what the Deputy Prime Minister says about figures and money the basic fact that the Government have created 20,000 more administrators and lost 50,000 nurses? If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the expert opinion of the British Medical Association, and if he wants a second opinion on the state of the health service, why not consult the people who really matter–the electorate–and the sooner the better?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady were a little more realistic with the figures that she quoted, she would have to point out that there are now 55,000 more qualified nurses and midwives than there were when the Labour party was last responsible for the health service and that waiting times are down. About 200,000 people were waiting more than 12 months in 1990–80,000 of them were doing so for more than two years–but today around 15,000 patients are waiting more than 12 months and only a couple of dozen are waiting more than 18 months.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Would my right hon. Friend have been prepared to answer questions from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) if his friends had not been so terrified of what he might say that they bundled him off to Hong Kong?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to ring me to explain that he could not be in the House this afternoon. I am not exactly sure why, but, given what the Leader of the Labour party said on Sunday, it occurs to me that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) may have gone looking for a job.

     

    Q2. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

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

    Mr. Jones: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the low morale in the teaching profession as a result of changes in the rules on the early retirement scheme and of the poor settlement that local authorities had in Wales this year? Is he aware, for example, that hundreds of teachers in Wales are applying for early retirement and that 1,000 others face redundancy as a result of local authority cuts? Are those the education policies that the Government will be pursuing in Wales in election year? If so, they are in for a rough ride. The right hon. Gentleman can restore morale by extending the consultation period on the teachers’ pension plan and by giving local education authorities more money so that they can at least maintain existing services.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has made it absolutely plain why she is changing the rules of the early retirement programme. I do not know which world the hon. Gentleman is living in, but he must be aware that the Government have provided an extra £875 million for schools, colleges and universities next year. How he can talk about a crisis, I fail to understand.

    Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that local government in Manchester, Liverpool, Lambeth and Islington is inefficient and incompetent and that those authorities are run by the people who wish to run the country? Run the country? The Labour party could not run a bath.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Every time Labour spokesmen tell us what they would like to do to improve education standards I wonder why they do not talk to Labour councillors who run local education authorities and tell them to improve the appalling record over which they preside.

     

    Q3. Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

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

    Mr. Hoyle: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that on 6 March 1996 the Secretary of State for Health gave an assurance that he would keep a close eye on intensive care capacity? Despite that assurance, a lack of intensive care beds in Warrington hospital means that operations are being cancelled and patients are being transferred to hospitals as far away as Leeds. That is happening not just in Warrington but throughout the north-west. Because of the Government’s folly, the number of bureaucrats has increased threefold at the expense of beds for patients. What does the Deputy Prime Minister, the most important person in the country at the moment, intend to do about that?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the provision of emergency beds. Health service administrators, who, as I said, cope with 25,000 patients a day, do a remarkable job in extraordinarily difficult and unpredictable circumstances. If one asks our hospital administrators to keep beds empty in anticipation of emergency admissions, one must explain to those who do not get the advantages of those beds why they are empty. Labour would be the first to complain if it could show that beds were empty because we had said that we had to keep them empty in case of emergency admissions.

    Mr. Marlow: The Government have obviously been studying the so-called windfall tax. I wonder how it would work if a company, having been floated, was then taken over–

    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a question on a matter for which the Government have responsibility. If he does that, I will listen to him. If he does not, I shall call another hon. Member. Questions must be on Government accountability.

    Mr. Marlow: If my right hon. Friend were looking for advice on how to run our schools, would he take it from a party that has been running local education authorities that have produced the most appalling results in the country?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the difference between the rhetoric and the performance of Labour local education authorities. I have no doubt that there is a chilling relationship between their incompetence in education management and the incompetence that has led to the production of an unworkable scheme called the windfall tax.

     

    Q4. Mr. Cummings: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 January.

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

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

    Mr. Cummings: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer. Is he aware of a recent case in which a seriously ill child of 20 months was driven from Sunderland to Edinburgh–120 miles–because of a lack of intensive care beds in Sunderland district general hospital’s paediatric unit? Will he assure my constituents, who use Sunderland district general hospital, that such incidents will not occur again, and will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the great distress in the health service?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am not familiar with the individual constituency case to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. I share the concern that he quite rightly feels on behalf of his constituent. However, I have answered the specific question, and I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is aware of the problems.

    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of my poorer constituents in Lichfield can send their children to private schools because of the assisted places scheme? Will he please confirm that the Government have no plans to abolish the scheme, because without it those parents could not afford to send their children to private schools?

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will not only maintain but expand the assisted places scheme. We believe in diversity of choice in education and in widening opportunities, which is why we have introduced legislation with precisely that purpose in mind. As I understand it, to exercise choice in the Labour party, one must either be the leader of that party or the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman).

    Mr. Beith: Does the Deputy Prime Minister realise the seriousness of the crisis in the health service and the depth of concern among all who work in it and all who depend on it? Will he take positive action by using his authority to end ward closures, while an evaluation is conducted of how much reserve capacity the health service needs? Everyone in the service agrees that it must have some reserve capacity.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: Substantial capacity is available to deal with emergency cases; otherwise the very difficult cases–such as that to which the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) drew attention–would be much more numerous. The House should salute the energy and devotion of those who work in the health service, who cope with those cases, day and night, with immense skill, care and attention.

  • 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 Doorstep Interview in Bangalore – 10 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Bangalore, given on Friday 10th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    You have had a good welcome all the way round, Prime Minister, you must be enjoying it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It has been a very enjoyable visit, a very worthwhile visit. I am delighted I came.

    QUESTION:

    You must be wishing that perhaps you will have the same warmth of welcome, particularly for the South Wirral by-election, it is going to be a crucial one, isn’t it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Every by-election is crucial, but South Wirral I suppose especially so. But we will call the South Wirral by-election soon.

    QUESTION:

    Does the decision to call the South Wirral by-election mean you have abandoned the hope of getting through to 1 May?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, certainly not, most certainly not. I will call an election when I think it is appropriate. But there are Parliamentary conventions about calling by-elections and we will honour the Parliamentary conventions. That will mean we need to call the South Wirral by-election round about the end of the month, I don’t precisely recall the exact date, and of course we will do so. But it has no further implication other than meeting the normal Parliamentary conventions.

    QUESTION:

    Would you be willing to predict that you can hold on to it, as it is so close to a general election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t make predictions about by-elections. All by-elections are important. I think what we need to concentrate on is not the date of by-elections, not even the date of general elections to be frank, but on the policy matters that need to be determined between the parties and on the policies that are right for the United Kingdom in the years ahead. Those are the matters that I will be concentrating on up to the by-election, during the by-election, up to the general election and during it.

    QUESTION:

    Will you go to Wirral South yourself, Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Traditionally I haven’t, I would not expect to, I think we will have a lot of Ministers at the Wirral South by-election. Since I am talking of tradition in calling it, traditionally I can’t think of an occasion when a Prime Minister has visited a by-election. I suspect I will have plenty of electioneering opportunities over the few weeks that lie ahead.

    QUESTION:

    Do you know about British Telecom buying a 60 million stake in India’s largest cable cellular operation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I knew it was probable. I haven’t seen lain Valiance today so I don’t know the last knockings of the deal, but I understand it is probable.

    QUESTION:

    It has been concluded, I believe.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If it has been concluded, I am very pleased it has been concluded. British Telecom, since they were privatised, have invested very heavily not only across the United Kingdom, certainly across the United Kingdom, but also across the rest of the world with substantial external investment and as a result of that a long stream of future earnings for the United Kingdom. So I am very pleased to see it. We are, the United Kingdom, I think the second largest overseas investor anywhere in the world and that is a very remarkable position and it is an indication of the strength of our economy that that is accelerating.

    QUESTION:

    Are you getting indications of other deals on the way as a result of the group that you have led here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sure there will be some, yes I am sure there will be some. Don’t ask me to predict precisely what. The businessmen and I have gone in opposite directions, we have opened a few doors. Ian Lang has been with them, he may be able to give you more information. Rut frankly, even if we had that information, until the contracts were announced I don’t think we would say anything about it. But this is intended to enshrine and develop the long term Anglo-Indian relationship. Since the establishment of the Indo-British Partnership in 1993, when I came here then, exports and investment have pretty nearly doubled, pretty nearly doubled.

    And it has gone both ways, both Indian investment in the United Kingdom, UK investment in India, and the trade flow both ways. And I think the success of that is very startling and it has indicated to everyone what the opportunities are for the future. And I think what we have done so far, what business and commerce I perhaps might more accurately say have done so far, is very remarkable. But I think the scope for accelerating and increasing that is almost unlimited, so I would expect to see a tremendous future increase in Anglo-Indian trade and investment.

    QUESTION:

    Can you give any more assurances about this question of transparency which I believe is a bit of a euphemism? The Prime Minister spoke of it yesterday, you saw him today.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends which aspects of transparency you are talking about. Transparency has many different forms. In terms of the trade flow and the transparency of the trade flow and the transparency of investment and matters of that sort, I think that is a situation that is improving all the time.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Bangalore – 10 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Bangalore, given on Friday 10th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    You have had a good welcome all the way round, Prime Minister, you must be enjoying it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It has been a very enjoyable visit, a very worthwhile visit. I am delighted I came.

    QUESTION:

    You must be wishing that perhaps you will have the same warmth of welcome, particularly for the South Wirral by-election, it is going to be a crucial one, isn’t it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Every by-election is crucial, but South Wirral I suppose especially so. But we will call the South Wirral by-election soon.

    QUESTION:

    Does the decision to call the South Wirral by-election mean you have abandoned the hope of getting through to 1 May?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, certainly not, most certainly not. I will call an election when I think it is appropriate. But there are Parliamentary conventions about calling by-elections and we will honour the Parliamentary conventions. That will mean we need to call the South Wirral by-election round about the end of the month, I don’t precisely recall the exact date, and of course we will do so. But it has no further implication other than meeting the normal Parliamentary conventions.

    QUESTION:

    Would you be willing to predict that you can hold on to it, as it is so close to a general election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t make predictions about by-elections. All by-elections are important. I think what we need to concentrate on is not the date of by-elections, not even the date of general elections to be frank, but on the policy matters that need to be determined between the parties and on the policies that are right for the United Kingdom in the years ahead. Those are the matters that I will be concentrating on up to the by-election, during the by-election, up to the general election and during it.

    QUESTION:

    Will you go to Wirral South yourself, Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Traditionally I haven’t, I would not expect to, I think we will have a lot of Ministers at the Wirral South by-election. Since I am talking of tradition in calling it, traditionally I can’t think of an occasion when a Prime Minister has visited a by-election. I suspect I will have plenty of electioneering opportunities over the few weeks that lie ahead.

    QUESTION:

    Do you know about British Telecom buying a 60 million stake in India’s largest cable cellular operation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I knew it was probable. I haven’t seen lain Valiance today so I don’t know the last knockings of the deal, but I understand it is probable.

    QUESTION:

    It has been concluded, I believe.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If it has been concluded, I am very pleased it has been concluded. British Telecom, since they were privatised, have invested very heavily not only across the United Kingdom, certainly across the United Kingdom, but also across the rest of the world with substantial external investment and as a result of that a long stream of future earnings for the United Kingdom. So I am very pleased to see it. We are, the United Kingdom, I think the second largest overseas investor anywhere in the world and that is a very remarkable position and it is an indication of the strength of our economy that that is accelerating.

    QUESTION:

    Are you getting indications of other deals on the way as a result of the group that you have led here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sure there will be some, yes I am sure there will be some. Don’t ask me to predict precisely what. The businessmen and I have gone in opposite directions, we have opened a few doors. Ian Lang has been with them, he may be able to give you more information. Rut frankly, even if we had that information, until the contracts were announced I don’t think we would say anything about it. But this is intended to enshrine and develop the long term Anglo-Indian relationship. Since the establishment of the Indo-British Partnership in 1993, when I came here then, exports and investment have pretty nearly doubled, pretty nearly doubled.

    And it has gone both ways, both Indian investment in the United Kingdom, UK investment in India, and the trade flow both ways. And I think the success of that is very startling and it has indicated to everyone what the opportunities are for the future. And I think what we have done so far, what business and commerce I perhaps might more accurately say have done so far, is very remarkable. But I think the scope for accelerating and increasing that is almost unlimited, so I would expect to see a tremendous future increase in Anglo-Indian trade and investment.

    QUESTION:

    Can you give any more assurances about this question of transparency which I believe is a bit of a euphemism? The Prime Minister spoke of it yesterday, you saw him today.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends which aspects of transparency you are talking about. Transparency has many different forms. In terms of the trade flow and the transparency of the trade flow and the transparency of investment and matters of that sort, I think that is a situation that is improving all the time.

  • Mr Major’s Statement at Bangalore Airport – 9 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement at Bangalore Airport on 9th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted, at the invitation of Prime Minister Deve Gowda, to be visiting his home state of Karnataka and its capital, Bangalore.
    Karnataka, and Bangalore in particular, have become synonymous with the growth and economic dynamism of the new India. British business is keen and well placed to play a significant part in that growth. Many leading British companies, such as Rolls Royce, British Aerospace, Coats Viyella, Brooke Bond, Lipton India Ltd, to name but a few, are already well established in Karnataka. Others, like Kvaerner John Brown Engineering (India) and Courtaulds Coatings, are more recently arrived. The President of the Board of Trade and a group of some fifty very senior representatives from a wide range of British business are accompanying me. They will be looking for further opportunities to expand the two-way trade between India and Britain that has flourished so successfully under the Indo-British Partnership.

    During my visit, I look forward to visiting:

    – Hindustan Aeronautics, with whom both Rolls Royce and British Aerospace have a long-standing and successful relationship;
    – Kvaerner John Brown Engineering (India), at the cutting edge of computer-driven design engineering;
    – Standard Chartered Bank, to inaugurate the Bangalore-based headquarters of their new all-India credit card operation.

    I also look forward to meeting representatives of the British charity Action Aid, who celebrate their 25th anniversary this year and have their all-India headquarters in Bangalore. Action Aid are cooperating closely with the Indian associate of the Prince of Wales Young Business Leaders’ Forum in launching a CD-Rom which will make more widely available crucial information on health, education, training and other development issues.

    In short, my visit will be an excellent opportunity to identify new business and investment opportunities in Karnataka, which can be developed to the mutual benefit of our two countries.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Confederation of Indian Industry – 9 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Confederation of Indian Industry, held in Calcutta on Thursday 9th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Mr Past President, Mr Chief Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen. Standing here this afternoon, looking around, I am reminded of an afternoon a few months ago at Downing Street in late July. It was a lovely day. The sun was shining. India were doing embarrassingly well in the Third Test at Trent Bridge [indistinct] Ganguly, who is I believe a Calcutta boy, and Sachin Tendulkar were already well past their centuries. For one of them to have scored 100 was acceptable, for both of them I thought was putting the status of guest at risk. But it was that afternoon that the Confederation of Indian Industry, led by their President, Mr Sheka Dafa [phon], had come to see me to discuss the progress of the Indo-British Partnership – a partnership I had had the privilege to establish with your then Prime Minister, Mr Narasimha Rao, in 1993.

    We were soon immersed in the Cabinet Room at Downing Street, immersed in the practical details of how to boost trade further. And while we were conducting this little exercise, Tendulkar and Ganguly continued to pile on the runs at Trent Bridge. And then Mr Dafa slipped in the question, unexpectedly with all the timing of a first-class batsman: Would I like to come to Calcutta in January to open this annual summit? Now my officials smiled very knowingly when he asked that question, and I can now tell him why. Because immediately before the CII had come I had had a lengthy diary discussion with my officials who had pointed out my diary was over-full and I needed to cut back on commitments. So my officials knew my diary, they sat back happily and they knew I would say no to the invitation. How wrong they were. The chance to come back to India, to revisit India, was too good to miss. Done, I said, and I am delighted, Mr President, to have the privilege of being your guest this afternoon.

    And I was going to say I felt that for three reasons, but actually I can make it four because, as you indicated a moment or so ago, the fourth reason is that it enabled me to visit just a few moments ago your magnificent ground at Eastern Gardens, just a stone’s throw away from where we sit, where Lancashire County Cricket Club are today playing the Eastern Region. And Eastern Gardens must, by anyone’s book, be one of the world’s great cricket grounds, so it was a very great delight to be there, as indeed it is to be here.

    And I must say, looking around this great hall, you make quite an impressive sight. I am used to audiences of 5-6,000 at Party Conferences once a year, but I think you have probably exceeded that quite comfortably and all from one city. But nonetheless I am most grateful for your warm welcome. In India one knows one is among friends.

    Let me turn to the three substantive non-cricketing reasons why I am particularly glad to be back.

    The first, I confess it, is entirely personal. I have always been fascinated by India, by your history, by your culture, by the tremendous size and diversity and vibrancy of your country. And to be here in Calcutta, one of the great cities of Asia, is an especial pleasure.

    The second reason is professional. Trade runs deep in the instincts of both our countries. We already conduct a vast amount of trade together and the volume is increasing steadily. In the last four years our trade has almost doubled to 3.5 billion pounds sterling every year. Now that is a remarkable achievement, but remarkable though that is, I am convinced that we can still do far more, both in trade and in mutual investment. And I am here today to ensure that we do in the future.

    My third reason is both past and future. On 15 August, India will celebrate the 50th anniversary of your Independence and your friends in Britain will be celebrating it with you. And I am particularly delighted that Her Majesty The Queen will visit India in October and that Prince Edward and the Lord Mayor of London, together I believe with the Royal Yacht, will be here in March. And at the same time there will be a comprehensive programme of arts and cultural events, a large number of them very generously sponsored by many of the Indian and British companies represented in this meeting today.

    So I am privileged to be here at the beginning of this anniversary year which will celebrate not only your independence but also the Indo-British Partnership.

    Fifty years. If you compare India’s position today with fifty years ago then the distance that you have travelled is truly remarkable. India is one of Asia’s great regional powers and will enhance its position even more widely in the years ahead. So how absurd it is, how ludicrous it is, that India was not included in the Asia-Europe summit dialogue established last year. Mr President, we must correct this anomaly. And I must tell you that Britain has been arguing forcefully with our partners in Europe and Asia for India’s inclusion in future, and we shall continue to do so until that inclusion is guaranteed as of right.

    But history is intriguing and fascinating, but it is the future that must predominantly concern us and our generation. So given all that India has achieved in the last 50 years, what are the prospects for the next 50? What can India become within 50 years from today? The size and the richness of your land, and the talent of the Indian people, make it likely that within 25 years, let alone 50, India will have firmly established herself as one of the world’s economic powers. And that is certainly going to be the case if India continues with the programmes of economic reform to which the Prime Minister assured me yet again this morning that he and his government were fully committed.

    And with this increasing economic authority will come new political, new security and new defence responsibilities and a strategic role for India in the first half of the 21st century. It is I think for India an exhilarating prospect and one that should fill India with confidence and her friends around the world with pleasure.

    It may well be true to say that it is a cliche to comment that the relationship between our two countries is unique. But cliche or not, it happens to be true. For in addition to our trade links, the histories of our countries have been deeply intertwined over the past two and a half centuries, not least of course in this great city of Calcutta. And whatever our ups and downs have been over that time, and there often have been ups and downs in our relationship, our two cultures have separately deeply influenced each other in almost every sphere. Any visitor to India can see that and so can any visitor to the United Kingdom.

    But today’s relationship between Britain and India – better, I believe, today than at any stage in the past since Independence – is not built on sentiment, it is based firmly on reality. It is a very modern relationship and I want to highlight three areas of particular importance.

    The first is the English language which has become the international language for the world’s trade and commerce. English is a global advantage to both of us. The cultural cross-fertilisation it brings is both strong and rewarding. It also eases business communication between us and enables us to indulge our shared sense of humour and shared interests. It also smoothes our long established tradition of academic exchanges. So I am delighted to be launching tomorrow both the British Council’s new programme for the direct teaching of English in India and the Indo-British Scholars Association which will bring together those who have studied in both countries.

    Indeed in many ways the ties that really bind countries together are those created by direct and natural links between the citizens of those countries, links between people. And that is the second area of key importance. So I want just for a moment to highlight today the role of the Indian community in my own country.

    Britain today is a multi-ethnic society, a multi-ethnic society to which the Indian community makes a huge contribution and a contribution that has over the years prospered and widened in both the public sector, in our schools, Health Service, local government and indeed Parliament itself. And throughout the private sector the Indian community in Britain makes an important, thoughtful and highly appreciated contribution.

    Particularly relevant is the increasing Indian presence in the ownership and management of British companies. India’s entrepreneurial flare is making itself felt in Britain, as it is in India, and I welcome this unreservedly and I look forward to seeing it grow further in the years ahead.

    The Indian community is now reckoned to be almost one million strong in the United Kingdom. They reinforce important values in our society, the importance of the family, the need for a sound ethical framework to govern our conduct and a belief in our ability to make a better life for our children through education, industry and enterprise. And as an integral part of British society they create an unbreakable bond between our countries which you will all know of from your own personal experience.

    The third essential aspect of our links is our joint membership of the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth happily rejuvenated in recent years, not least by South Africa’s renewed membership.

    It bring together an historically unique cross-section of countries with a shared commitment to democracy and it offers a distinctive perspective on world issues, and increasingly these days the Commonwealth is prepared to tackle the critical issues of the day.

    Britain and India have a key role to play as two of the Commonwealth’s leading members and I much look forward to welcoming your Prime Minister to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting which Britain will be hosting later this year in the historic city of Edinburgh, a city indeed not far from Dundee which the jute industry so closely links with Calcutta.

    Mr President, one issue which the Commonwealth is well suited to tackle is the promotion of international trade. I see this of key importance, key importance for the developing world as well as for the developed world. And that is why I suggested that the theme for India should revolve around the question of trade, investment and development and the way to build Commonwealth prosperity.

    I want to turn now to the three elements – trade, investment and development. Because each of those, it seems to me, has a key role to play not just in the Commonwealth as a whole, or between Britain and India specifically, but more widely in the world of today.

    Let me turn firstly to trade. It is self-evidently in both our countries’ interest to continue to boost the volume and the value of joint trade. I have already referred to the remarkable increase since the establishment of the Indo-British Partnership, and I would like to pay a very warm tribute here to businessmen on both sides who have contributed so much to this, led in many cases by the CII.

    But I am also convinced that we can do far more. Ian Lang, the President of the Board of Trade, who is here with me this afternoon, set a target of 5 billion pounds sterling by the year 2000 when he addressed your centenary meeting last year. We are on track to reach that target and I am determined that we should get there and then go further. We are certainly taking active steps to do so, and that is why on this particular trip to India I am delighted to be accompanied by perhaps the most powerful trade mission ever to have left Britain’s shores together. The Chairmen, Chief Executives and senior board members of sixty of Britain’s largest companies, they collectively represent some twenty percent of the United Kingdom’s total turnover and 30 percent of our total exports.

    And why are they here? They are here because they – Britain’s industrial and commercial leaders – see real opportunities for expanding their business, whether in trade, or investment or in services, largely as a result of your liberalising your economy.

    And these businessmen with me today are not here for one quick deal in or out, these are companies either with a long historic relationship with India or companies who see their relationship with India as a relationship that will stretch far into the future and widen and deepen. They are not here for today’s contract, they are here for the long haul and the long term relationship with your country and with your industry.

    But it is not only the large British companies that are now playing their part in India’s economic growth. Over 600 new Indo-British joint ventures have been formed in the past three years, most of them involving small and medium size companies new to the Indian market. And they cover anything from the introduction of new technology, for example tidal measuring equipment for the Indian Navy to the development of new business techniques. And earlier today I was delighted to participate with your Prime Minister in the establishment of a new centre of excellence in Calcutta, jointly organised by the CII and a number of British universities to train young Indian entrepreneurs in the theory and practice of business management.

    My second crucial ingredient is investment. The United Kingdom is now the world’s second largest outward investor and we have for some years been the largest overseas investor in India. But in the last four years, since the formation of the Indo-British Partnership, British investment here has grown by some 50 percent to around 3,000 million pounds sterling. As much again is in the pipeline, including two huge power projects in Western India.

    This is remarkable progress, but I have to tell you frankly that it isn’t all plain sailing. Bureaucratic inertia and a lack of transparency in the awards of contracts continue to discourage some foreign investors. I know your government is committed to tackling this and I warmly welcome that. And as deregulation, as economic reform improves and accelerates in India, there is a wall of investment out there eager and willing to come and invest in the new and emerging India that the world can see so clearly.

    But that investment is two-way, not just British investment here in India. I welcome equally the recent growth of Indian investment in the United Kingdom as Indian companies recognise that the United Kingdom is the natural gateway to the vast markets of the European Union. Indian companies investing in Britain can be sure of a warm welcome. They will find that we treat them as if they were indigenous British companies, and we will continue to treat them that way in future. We do so because we welcome their investment; we do so because investment brings jobs and jobs bring prosperity; we do so because we believe intrinsically in free trade, and not only believe in it, we practise it as well; we do so because it provides benefits for consumers through better quality, lower prices and a wider range of goods and services. It forces companies to be more competitive so prices go down.

    So India’s investment is welcome for you and it is profitable for the investor.

    But I firmly believe that trade and investment can only maximise their benefits if they are allowed to flow with the minimum, the very minimum possible, of government interference. That is why in the United Kingdom I am determined to unshackle the British economy from the bonds of bureaucracy, to sweep away petty interference and regulation, to cut through red tape so that the market is free to operate without one arm held behind its back by government and by government regulation.

    We have a good deal more to do. But the results so far speak for themselves. By insisting on deregulation and by remorselessly bearing down on inflation and unnecessary government expenditure, Britain is now enjoying the best economic conditions for a generation, and also enjoying the strongest recovery of any of the leading European economies. Inflation around 3 percent; output growing at 7.5 percent; base rates at 6 percent; and unemployment now under 7 percent of the workforce and falling consistently throughout the last three years.

    So it won’t surprise you, Mr President, that I welcome once again the recent widespread liberalisation of the Indian economy. The removal of a string of tariff and licensing barriers has brought a surge of economic activity in inward investment.

    No-one pretends that economic reform is easy or painless. It takes courage and persistence and the capacity to endure some political unpopularity to carry out economic reform. It wasn’t easy or painless in Britain and I know it is not easy or painless in India either. But it is essential, it is essential if the country’s full potential is to be realised, and India’s potential seems to me to be almost beyond imagination.

    So I warmly applaud your government’s commitment to continuing liberalisation. Three key sectors for further progress are telecommunications, financial services and consumer goods. State of the art telecommunications will be vital for industrial success in the future. Opening up the insurance sector, for example, would also contribute significantly to long term growth providing scarce funds for infrastructure development. Opening up trade in consumer goods would create further investment and growth more widely. Indian tariffs are still high by international standards, especially when countervailing duty is added. I hope that early progress can be made in bringing them down too, as well as removing import controls and in improving the protection of intellectual property. Open markets, open markets for both goods and, increasingly, services create wealth and they raise living standards; they create opportunities for growth, for investment and for employment; they keep the pressure on companies to be competitive; they give exporters the chance to boost their sales and they bring lower prices and greater choice.

    But it is not only because of the economic benefit that I so passionately believe in open markets and free trade. They also have a key role in promoting democracy and freedom of choice, and I am not here thinking specifically of India, one of the world’s great democracies. But more generally, once consumers have the power to choose their product, it is not such a great step to demanding the right to choose their government. And trade and investment will only flourish against a stable political background. So open markets and free trade help to bind countries together in a community of [indistinct].

    That outlook has been, and will remain, central to Britain’s membership of the European Union. Whether for central or eastern Europe, or for countries further afield, I am convinced that the best way for the European Union to encourage democracy and prosperity is for its markets – the European Union’s markets – to remain open to the products of developing countries, and open also to their investment.

    It is no coincidence that Britain is now far and away the leading destination for inward investment for the European Union with over 40 percent of the United States, Japanese and Korean investment. Overseas companies, based in Britain, now also account for 40 percent of our worldwide exports.

    For all these reasons, Britain led the way with other member states in calling for the European Union’s recent agreement with India to be generous and to be open to your Indian products for the evidence indicates that it is those countries that are most integrated into the world economy that achieve the fastest growth in output. The benefits of the increasing globalisation of international business are vast for those economies ready and able to take advantage.

    And that is why I support free trade and open markets throughout the world and that is why I have called for the developed world to abolish tariffs on the imports from developing countries. Providing we all work on a level playing field, the opportunities for all of us are enormous.

    And that is the importance of the World Trade Organisation. It provides a framework of rules for international commerce that fosters economic growth instead of hindering it. The World Trade Organisation held its first Ministerial meeting in Singapore last month and I was encouraged by the progress that it made, and I am convinced that India has nothing to fear, and much to gain, from it.

    Meanwhile, Mr. President, I welcome also the progress being made in opening up regional trade in South Asia. I was especially pleased to see the recent water-sharing agreement between India and Bangladesh, a tremendous achievement enormously to the credit of both sides.

    As you can see, I am overwhelmingly a vigorous advocate of trade but not – if I can move to another subject briefly, Mr. President – in all things. Trade must have a heart and a conscience as well as a profit and I very much regret the sad fact, for example, that the tiger has now become one of the most endangered animals in the world as they are slaughtered by poachers for use in traditional medicine. The plight of the tiger is very close to the hearts of the British people and I believe close to the hearts of people the world over. The great forests of India provide a home for 80 per cent of the world’s remaining tiger population. I warmly welcome the steps which India is taking to tackle this problem, they are doing a great deal and it needs to continue to be done and perhaps more as well but we will continue to work with India and with the wider international community to help find a solution to this problem. The tiger is a proud and a glorious animal, we must ensure his survival so that our great grandchildren can enjoy his grace and power as much as we do in our generation.

    My third and final vital ingredient is development assistance. Our belief in the benefits of free trade doesn’t mean that we underestimate the difficulties of getting there so in Britain we concentrate on using our aid budget both to help the poorest of the poor and in supporting countries in introducing or strengthening market disciplines and the other elements of good government and what does that mean it practice?

    It means helping to finance the basic infrastructure to support local business and encourage foreign investment. It means helping countries to make progress with the social and environmental issues which along with economic growth are essential for sustainable development and it means helping to establish health and education system which can produce the healthy and skilled work-force necessary to compete in world markets.

    Britain’s aid programme for India at £100 million last year is by some way our largest aid programme for any country and in line with what I have said, it focused on a range of projects: projects to improve basic services such as water, education, health and family planning for the poor; projects to support reform in key sectors of the economy such as the power sector – one recent example is our help with restructuring the Arissa [phon] State Electricity Board on commercial lines though many other examples could be given.

    A great deal of our aid, of course, is concentrated here in West Bengal and I was very glad earlier today to announce an important new project to improve primary education here by providing more teacher training, more educational materials and more school buildings; it will improve the availability and quality of education for almost 2.5 million children in West Bengal. [Applause].

    Mr. President, Britain and India, as close friends of long standing face many of the same challenges as well as different challenges, and it is right that India and Britain should compare our experiences and where we so wish seek to learn one from the other. In Britain, the benefits of open markets for our trade, for our investment and for the effectiveness of our development assistance proved themselves worthwhile not simply in themselves but because of the concrete benefits that they bring in their wake both in Britain and more widely.

    Each country must makes its own choice. India’s government has made clear its own commitment to liberalisation and I have indicated already how much I welcome that. Britain’s aim is global free trade by 2020. That is ambitious but I believe it is achievable and Britain will use all its influence in the European Union, the World Trade Organisation and other key economic organisations to bring it about. We are determined to remain standard-bearers of free trade, open markets and open societies and those of us who favour liberalisation and free trade need now to press firmly forward. The current opportunity clearly there at present to open world markets may not last. It would be a tragedy of vast proportions if confidence were to falter and the momentum be lost. Even worse would be a turn up the blind alley of protectionists where so often countries have gone before with dire consequences that followed would be a tragedy, it happened in the 1930s, it must not happen again.

    Mr. President, working together as firm friends I hope that Britain and India can work to prevent that and you can be sure that in pursuing your chosen course of liberalisation you will have no firmer friend than those you can find in the United Kingdom.

    I spoke earlier about India’s role over the next 50 years. Perhaps I could close by describing how I see it for I am sure that the next 50 years hold out for India a remarkable promise and new responsibilities as well. I see India over the next 50 years fulfilling its potential as by then probably the largest nation on earth, I see India as a secular democracy that has resisted the siren calls of caste, religion, language and community, it has gained from its united in diversity but has spread its rich cultural gifts throughout the globe. I see India as a country which has seen that its poor need not be huddled masses but can be producers and consumers. I see a country with a rich civil society, a country which is a world leader in information technology, a cleaner and greener but certainly no less colourful nation and I see emerging a country with a rich heritage combining a prosperous present a promising future and I see India developing in those years as one of the world’s greatest economic powers, a political force for good regionally in Asia and a leading player at the top tables of the 21st century’s international institutions whether at the United Nations, in the Commonwealth or at the World Trade Organisation.

    This is not some fanciful imagination of India’s future. It is a cool and clear-eyed assessment of what lies before India in industry if India continues to develop in the direction in which it has been going and that is a wonderful future to work toward.

    If I were to leave you perhaps with three messages, what would they be? I think perhaps these:

    The United Kingdom offers India a friendly, fixed point in an uncertain world. In partnership we can put the lessons we have learned together in the past to good use together in the future. The pain and difficulty of economic change, including greater transparency and accountability, are amply repaid by the results. It is through economic reform that India will become a major international economic power and finally, Mr. President, the message would be this:

    Regional economic cooperation is the best platform both for resolving bilateral disputes and for entertaining the global economy. Trade and investment are not a threat to the sovereignty of India any more than they are a threat to the sovereignty of Britain, they are the keys to an independent and interdependent future. India’s future is assured, India’s growth and prosperity are certain if it pursues the direction in which it is going. India may be certain that not only will it gain internally from these changes but India will find that around the world its friends and admirers will be cheering it on as it makes those changes and nowhere, Mr. President, will they be cheering more consistently or more loudly than in my country, the United Kingdom. Thank you for being here! [Applause]