The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Kashmir

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Islamabad – 12 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Islamabad, held on Sunday 12th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what issues did you discuss in your talks with our Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We had some very interesting and worthwhile discussions. They overran a little and I think that reflects the fact that we covered a lot of ground and they were very interesting. Let me summarise some of the things we discussed for you. We discussed, of course, the celebrations for the 50th Anniversary of Independence, we discussed the many events that will be taking place both in the United Kingdom and in Pakistan, and in particular The Queen’s visit in October and the arrival of the Royal Yacht and the Lord Mayor of London earlier in the year. We regard this as a very important anniversary and we are very anxious to make sure that it is a success.

    We also spent a lot of time discussing the trade and investment opportunities. I have brought with me to Pakistan a very distinguished large group of very senior businessmen, indeed there are no more senior businessmen that I have brought with me, to Pakistan. We have seen over the last few years a significant increase in trade between our two countries and a truly remarkable increase in British investment in Pakistan. And the Prime Minister and I have been discussing this and we have been discussing the tremendous opportunities that exist to increase mutual trade and to accelerate investment in Pakistan and I very much hope that we are going to be able to achieve this.

    We discussed also the drugs problems. We are working together to deal with the drugs problems. As you may recall, the United Kingdom were able to provide two helicopters recently to help in that. We began discussions on further measures that we might be able mutually to take to deal with the problems of drugs.

    We discussed a series of individual trading matters and I raised earlier in my private discussion with the Prime Minister our continuing concern about the kidnapped captives from Kashmir. Those and a range of other matters were part of our agenda this afternoon. I don’t promise you that that is an absolutely comprehensive list of the things we discussed, but it is at least a good starting point for you.

    QUESTION:

    There are serious human rights violations in occupied Kashmir, would you please comment on this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are very concerned about human rights violations wherever they occur, and we will have the opportunity to discuss Kashmir. We didn’t discuss Kashmir at length this afternoon. I am sure we will discuss Kashmir at greater length tomorrow, that is certainly the case, but thus far we didn’t. So we will deal with that and other matters tomorrow.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that Kashmiris should be given the right of self-determination under the UNO?

    PRIME MINISTER.

    We will be discussing Kashmir tomorrow and I will comment on it when we have discussed it tomorrow?

    QUESTION:

    Did the question of Afghanistan come up in the discussions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The question of Afghanistan did come up in the discussions, it came up in the context of drugs initially, but also our concern to make sure that there is a ceasefire and a proper series of negotiations in Afghanistan and that the Taliban and others cooperate with the United Nations Special Mission, and we spent some time discussing that.

    QUESTION:

    Since you are coming here from New Delhi and Dhaka, what is your assessment about the regional security situation and what role can Britain play to promote peace and stability in South Asia and to discourage the arms race initiative by our eastern neighbour, India?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are very keen to see greater security in Asia. I understand the problems that have arisen with China, with India and Pakistan and they are matters also that we will be discussing tomorrow. We have not yet had the opportunity of discussing them this afternoon, it has been a preliminary discussion. But at the end of the day, that improvement of security cannot be brought about by external forces, it can best be brought about by agreements between India, Pakistan and, where appropriate, China. We would very much like to see such agreements, we have made no secret of that. We are very keen to see an ending of the arms race, particularly insofar as nuclear weaponry is concerned. But essentially the decisions are actually going to have to be taken by the nations themselves. We would actively seek to see that happen, we think it would be very desirable that it does happen and I daresay that is another matter we will have the opportunity to talk about tomorrow. But this afternoon the Prime Minister and I have principally been talking about trading and related matters.

  • PMQT – 23 April 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kashmir

    Q1. Mr. Madden: To ask the Prime Minister when he intends next to meet the Prime Minister of India to discuss Kashmir.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I have no plans at present to meet the Indian Prime Minister. I look forward to an early opportunity to do so following the Indian elections, which begin later this month.

    Mr. Madden: Does the Prime Minister share the growing international view that the conflict over Kashmir presents the gravest threat to international peace today, given that India and Pakistan have gone to war over Kashmir previously, and that both countries now have a nuclear capability? Against that background, will the Prime Minister and Her Majesty’s Government do everything possible to persuade the next Government of India to enter into serious and urgent negotiations with the Government of Pakistan on the basis of UN resolutions, to find an acceptable settlement on the basis of the right of the people of Kashmir to decide their own future?

    The Prime Minister: That is an important matter, as the hon. Gentleman says. We are in touch with our friends and colleagues in India and in Pakistan. We have said consistently to those friends and colleagues that we are prepared to help in the search for a solution, either at the UN or in any other forum, provided that the parties concerned wish us to do so. That remains our position, but there must be simultaneous progress on several fronts–first, self-evidently, bilateral dialogue; secondly, the development of a genuine political process in Kashmir, with an improvement in the human rights position there; and, thirdly, a clear cessation of external support for militants, which has poisoned the atmosphere in Kashmir for far too long.

    Mr. Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent developments in Kashmir have caused many UK citizens of Kashmiri origin much anxiety? His statement that the British Government will continue to press for a stable democratic solution of the Kashmir problem will therefore be most welcome.

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know from my experience that what he says about citizens here in the United Kingdom is true. Our policy is to advocate the development of a genuine political process in Kashmir.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Ms Armstrong: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

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

    Ms Armstrong: As we once again see Tory Members of Parliament queuing up to express their differences–one with another–over European policy, is not the Government’s real problem the widely held view of the Prime Minister, which was vocalised this morning by Sir James Goldsmith when he asked how people could be expected to follow a man who zig-zags so much?

    The Prime Minister: I can think of some prominent politicians who, in the past two years, have made it their life’s work to deny everything that they stood for previously. So far as I recall, those politicians enjoy the strong support of the hon. Lady.

    As to Europe, the hon. Lady might care to look at the comments of some of her hon. Friends in response to recent statements that I have made about Europe which expose clear differences on the Opposition Benches. She might also care to look at some of the pamphlets that have been produced, in which many tens of Labour Members demonstrate their sharp differences with the Labour Front-Bench policy. They are as split on Europe as they could be.

     

    Q3. Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that British beef is best and that that remains the case despite the scaremongering by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) which has done so much damage? Will he tell our European colleagues that, until the ban is lifted, there will be no more co-operation from this country, nor any more British money?

    The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that British beef is best. I am also happy to confirm to him and to others that it is entirely safe, and that has been verified by British scientists, by the World Health Organisation and by Commissioner Fischler. There is no justification whatever for the European ban, but I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made some progress this morning and I am delighted with that. We are seeking to get the ban lifted as soon as possible, and I hope and expect that that will happen.

    As to withholding resources, I must tell my hon. Friend that that would be illegal under United Kingdom law, quite apart from European law. I am not sure that either the House or my hon. Friend would wish the Government to behave illegally.

    Mr. Blair: I suspect that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) speaks for many tens on the Conservative side. Will the Prime Minister clarify whether it is the Government’s policy to threaten retaliation against Europe over beef, so that the confusion and incompetence at the heart of Government policy may be removed once and for all?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman once threatened to leave Europe, as I recall–it was part of his election manifesto. As the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) might put it, he has clearly zig-zagged from that policy since then.

    Our policy is as I described it a moment ago: to try to seek, by agreement, the lifting of the ban. I hope that the ban will be lifted but, if that is unreasonably withheld, our position is–as it has been–that we shall look at other options.

    Mr. Blair: What does that mean? I suggest to the Prime Minister that a strategy based on the Grand Old Duke of York is not a very good one. The Foreign Secretary is hinting at retaliation, the Deputy Prime Minister contradicts him and he calls his European partners a bunch of something-or-others while the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is negotiating with them.

    Will the Prime Minister kindly take a grip on the situation? If he does not, he will find that his Government are taken seriously neither at home nor abroad.

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends played a part in creating this problem. There is not a beef farmer in this country who does not know that the problem has been worsened by the way in which the Labour party has behaved. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has the gall to continue to behave in that way. I set the matter out perfectly clearly for the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago and I am sorry that he was unable to understand it. We are discussing the lifting of the ban, and we are making progress on that. That is the right way to proceed but, at the end of the discussions, if the lifting of the ban is unreasonably withheld, we shall consider other options for action. I hope that is clear enough for the right hon. Gentleman this time.

    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister is to threaten retaliation, he should be clear about what he is saying. At some point, the Prime Minister will have to admit the brutal truth to himself–that the business of his Government is less designed to run an Administration than to appease the factions in the Conservative party. Until that changes, he and his Government will be divided, weak and incompetent.

    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on being clear, perhaps he will be clear about his tax plans. Perhaps he will be clear about why, if children stay on to do A-levels, their parents should lose £500 a year in benefit. Perhaps he will recognise that we operate in Europe in the national interest while he seeks party interest. It is in the national interest to seek, as we are doing, the lifting of the ban on beef, and it is equally in everyone’s interest to remind the beef industry which party played a role in worsening the crisis.

     

    Q4. Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Sir Wyn Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of young people staying on in full-time education since 1979? Does he agree that that considerable achievement, on which our future depends, is put at risk by the plans that we have heard from Opposition Front Benchers for chopping the funding for 16 to 18-year-olds?

    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Even among the children of unskilled parents, more than half now stay on in education beyond their 16th birthdays. The claim by the shadow Chancellor, who is probably absent because he is checking his figures, that only 20 per cent. of children stay on at school is years and years out of date. It is based on figures from between 1974 and 1978, under the Labour Government. The fact that the figures are so wrong shows the vast increase in educational opportunities since then. The reality for working-class and other parents is that, if their children stay on at school beyond GCSE to A-level, the Labour party will charge them £500 for each child by taking away their child benefit–so much for Labour’s concern for opportunities for the poor.

    Mr. Ashdown: We can always tell when the Government are in a real mess–they start to blame everybody else. Given the urgent necessity to get the ban on British beef lifted, have not the past 24 hours been all too typical of the five weeks of fiasco over BSE? The Foreign Secretary launches gunboats over breakfast, Tarzan sounds the retreat over lunch and, by dinner, the poor old Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on his way to Brussels, is shot in the foot again. How on earth can we persuade Europe to believe the Government when the Government cannot even agree among themselves?

    The Prime Minister: I suppose that, one day, it is just possible we might hear something from the right hon. Gentleman about what he would do in any given circumstances. We never hear that: we just get the usual carping criticism. The matter was carried forward in Moscow, when I met Heads of Government on Saturday; my right hon. and learned Friend took it further in the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday; and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is pursuing it today. Each and every day, there are further meetings and more progress is made towards getting the ban lifted. It would be helpful if, just once, the right hon. Gentleman were to think of the interests of the beef industry and of the country, rather than produce the carping criticism that we usually get from him.

     

    Q5. Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Church-aided schools have a long and proud tradition of providing good quality education? Therefore, is he, like me, shocked to see the specific attacks on Church schools by the Liberal Democrats? Is that not another example of the Liberal Democrats attacking parental choice and the right of parents to make their own choice? Does he agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that parents must take that into account when they vote at the next election?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of moral and spiritual education, and I share the views of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). What the Liberal spokesman said was a silly and ill-considered attack on religious education and I can assure my hon. Friend that it will never form part of our policy.

    Mr. Donald Anderson: What further measures of appeasement do the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Conservative party have in mind to placate the patriot across the water, Sir James Goldsmith?

    The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is quite clear–none.

     

    Q6. Mr. Congdon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will press ahead with the objective of achieving a 20 per cent. rate of basic income tax? Given the reports in the press at the weekend, is it not absolutely clear that, while the Government are rightly moving towards a 20p rate, the Labour party is moving towards a 30p rate?

    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, one quarter of taxpayers already pay tax at only 20 per cent. and I confirm that, as soon as it is affordable, we shall move further towards a 20 per cent. tax rate for everyone. There is no doubt that taxes go up under Labour Governments. The Labour party does not like to admit that. Today, the shadow Chancellor is trying to gag the City, but the fact is that, because Labour wishes to spend more, it will always tax more at national level, as it is doing today at local level.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 5 May 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 5th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kashmir Elections

    Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Indian Government as to the holding of elections during the current year in the Indian-occupied area of Kashmir; and if he will make a statement on the criteria the British Government will expect to see followed to have confidence that such elections were free and fair.

    The Prime Minister: I have had no recent discussions with the Indian Government, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed elections in Kashmir during his visit to India in January. We shall be considering with our European partners how best to assess the forthcoming elections in Kashmir.

     

    Atlantic Trade

    Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with President Clinton concerning a merger between the North American Free Trade Area and the European Union.

    The Prime Minister: The UK Government, the European Commission and the US Administration are each looking at various specific ways of liberalising trade both across the north Atlantic and more generally. We believe Europe and north America must work together for free and open trade across the Atlantic.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 April 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th April 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lockerbie

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 28 March, Official Report, columns 545-46, and to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 10 April, what response he has had from the United States authorities as to the authenticity or otherwise of a signal, a copy of which was sent to him and to the US embassy in London, by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, purporting to be a threat to the life of Major Charles McKee, who died over Lockerbie by the agencies of the United States Government.

    The Prime Minister: The United States authorities’ examination of the document concerned is continuing. They have not yet been able to establish its authenticity.

     

    Nursery Places

    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what are the total number of workplace nursery places provided by each Government Department; and what plans there are to increase this provision.

    The Prime Minister: Information on individual Departments and agencies’ number of workplace nursery places is not collected centrally in the form requested. However, as detailed in the childcare bulletin, to be published by the Cabinet Office later this month, 39 Departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies are currently involved in 71 workplace nurseries, in which there are over 1,800 places. Copies of the bulletin will be placed in the Library of the House.

    It is for Departments and agencies to decide whether to increase their childcare provision in the light of their own circumstances, provided they can justify this in value-for-money terms and contain costs within their existing budgets. I am aware of plans for two further workplace nurseries–in Falkirk, 30 places, and in York, 33 places.

     

    VE Day (Poland)

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what representations have been made to Her Majesty’s Government alleging disparity of treatment between Poland and other allied countries in respect of Poland’s exclusion from the principal allies Heads of States and Heads of Governments visits to allied countries in and around the days of commemorating victory in Europe; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: We have had no such representations. Her Majesty’s Government invited the Polish Head of State, President Walsea, to attend the United Kingdom’s VE day commemorations. The Polish Foreign Minister, Wladyslaw Barotszewski, will attend as his representative. It is for other countries to decide who to invite to their commemorations.

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister if he will state the policy of his Government on the existing United Nations resolutions on Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Britain supported, and both India and Pakistan agreed, the United Nations resolutions of 1948 and 1949, which provided the basis of a possible solution of the Kashmir disputes. Neither side fully implemented those resolutions which have, to some extent, been overtaken by events. The 1972 Simla agreement represents the most recent formal agreement between India and Pakistan on the handling of the dispute. It envisages settlement through bilateral negotiations or other peaceful means mutually agreed between them. We believe this to be the best way forward.

     

    Mahogany

    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister how many metres of mahogany or products containing it his Department has bought in the last five years; and if he will list the purpose and the costs.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 April 1995]: None.

     

    Security Vetting

    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1994 on security vetting, Official Report, column 764, where civil servants who undergo vetting are informed as to why they have been refused security clearance; whether they are given an opportunity to contest the accuracy of information held against them; whether they are informed of any appeals process; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: Under the security vetting system introduced on 1 January 1995, civil servants in post must always be informed of the outcome of their vetting. An individual who is refused security clearance will be informed of the reasons for this. In a small number of exceptional cases, considerations of national security and maintaining the confidential nature of the information provided by referees may limit disclosure. If a clearance has been denied on the grounds of criminal convictions, or as a result of financial inquiries, the individual will be shown the information on which the decision was based and will have the opportunity to correct any inaccuracies. Under the grievance procedures provided for in the civil service management code, it is open to civil servants to appeal against any management decisions which affect them adversely, including vetting decisions.

    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1994 on security vetting, Official Report, column 764, if he will outline the safeguards he has put in place to protect those who are vetted; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: All candidates for security vetting are asked to complete a security questionnaire which explains the purpose of the procedure and invites them to provide the personal details required for the necessary checks to be carried out. Only the checks listed in my statement to the House of 15 December 1994 are carried out. All information given for the purpose of the vetting process is treated in confidence and protected accordingly.

    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 1994 on security vetting, Official Report, column 764, to what extent the basic check involves the use of criminal records and criminal intelligence to ensure that potential recruits are reliable and trustworthy; whether contractors, needing to carry out basic checks, will be able to access information from police sources to access whether potential recruits are reliable and trustworthy; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The basic check is designed to assure Departments that potential recruits are reliable and trustworthy primarily through the verification of identity, the taking up of character references and self-declaration of unspent criminal convictions. In some exceptional cases, however, it may be decided, with Cabinet Office–Office of Public Service and Science approval, that additional checks are necessary. This may involve a check against the national collection of criminal records. Contractors are not able to access these records and the department or agency placing the contract conducts this part of the check.

     

    Advisers

    Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister how many advisers his department employs broken down to show (a) political advisers and (b) economic advisers; at what grade and salary they are employed; and what are their minimum working hours in each case.

    The Prime Minister: My Department employs seven political advisers. Their salaries and conditions of work are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings and are confidential. My department employs no professional economists; economic advice is obtained from career civil servants, who may be employed on a variety of working patterns.

     

    Acceptance of Gifts

    Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if the Government have been approached during the last 15 years for advice on the suitability of accepting any financial gift, payment or commission by a Minister, a relative of a Minister, an hon. Member or a relative of an hon. Member.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 18 April 1995]: Advice to Ministers on the acceptance of gifts by themselves or by members of their families is contained in “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”. Advice on specific cases sought by and given to individuals is private.

    Hon. Members are guided in these matters by the rules of the House.

     

    Ministers (Car Hire)

    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 5 April, Official Report, column 1131, if he will publish the rules governing the use by members of the Government of private hire cars at public expense.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 21 April 1995]: I have nothing to add to the answer given on 5 April. There are no rules governing the use of private hire cars.

     

    Allowances

    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the total amount paid by his central Department and each agency for which he is responsible in subsistence allowances for travel (a) within the United Kingdom and (b) outside the United Kingdom in each of the last three years;

    (2) if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible (a) the total amount of removal costs and associated expenses reimbursed to officials who were required to relocate as part of their employment, (b) the amount of each of the highest three claims that were concluded and settled and (c) the average amount of each claim in each of the last three years;

    (3) if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible (a) the total hours of overtime worked for which payment has been made, (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years.

    The Prime Minister: For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 20 April, Official Report, columns 258-61.

     

    Correspondence

    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Prime Minister what is the target time that each Government Department aims to take in replying to letters from right hon. and hon. Members and if he will give the reasons for variations; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science, to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) on 18 April, Official Report, columns 21-24.

    The nature of correspondence varies greatly between Departments. In some Departments, for example, a high proportion of correspondence requires reference to individual casework before a reply can be sent. Targets are set to reflect the particular circumstances of Departments and consequently target times may differ.

     

    Departmental Report

    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister (1) what measures the Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report;

    (2) how much staff time, and at what estimated cost, was put into compiling the departmental annual report; and what the figures were for each year for which figures are available since 1990.

    The Prime Minister: For this purpose, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science on 21 April, Official Report, column 290.

  • PMQT – 3 March 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 3rd March 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kashmir

    Q1. Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister how many independent observers have been allowed by the Indian authorities to visit the Indian occupied area of Kashmir since his visit last year.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : A number of independent observers have visited Kashmir since January 1993. They include parliamentarians, jurists, diplomats, journalists and human rights groups. The Indian Government have also recently agreed to a visit by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

    Mr. Cox : I note that reply. Is the Prime Minister aware, however, that the Indian Government are reluctant to allow independent observers to visit the occupied area? Indeed, they refused to allow an all-party group from the House to go there.

    Is the Prime Minister aware that the forthcoming visit of the Indian Prime Minister gives him an opportunity to make known to that gentleman the deep revulsion felt by many hon. Members about the on-going attacks and brutality perpetrated by the Indian security forces against men, women and children in occupied Kashmir? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will make that known?

    The Prime Minister : I look forward to Prime Minister Rao’s visit to this country. We have excellent relations with the Indian Government, and I look forward to discussing a range of matters with him. As for access for independent national groups, we have encouraged the Indian Government to allow independent access to India. There have been steps towards greater openness in recent months, and I thoroughly welcome that.

    Mr. Jessel : Is this not just one more attempt by Opposition Members to wreck Britain’s excellent relationship with a most friendly Commonwealth country? Will my right hon. Friend not only welcome India’s own decision to set up a human rights commission but remind all the independent observers that terrorists are murderers, and that the most important human right is the right to stay alive?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend says, we have an excellent relationship with the Indian Government, both politically and in terms of a greatly increased flow of two-way trade with India. As for my hon. Friend’s second point, I think that we shall soon have a report from the Indian human rights commission, and I look forward to that. I understand that it will deal with a wide range of issues that have been drawn to the commission’s attention.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. O’Hara : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

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

    Mr. O’Hara : Does the Prime Minister share the President of the Board of Trade’s low opinion of the legal advice offered by the Attorney- General?

    The Prime Minister : That is not the position of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    Mr. Thurnham : Does my right hon. Friend welcome the news that nearly 2 million North Western electricity board–NORWEB–customers are to benefit from a 6 per cent. cut in the price of their electricity from 1 April? Coming on top of a cut of nearly 2 per cent. last summer, does that not prove that privatisation works?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that that is certainly the case. There have been significant reductions in fuel prices in recent years, and I welcome that.

    Mr. John Smith : Madam Speaker– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. What a total waste of valuable time in Prime Minister’s questions.

    Mr. John Smith : Concerning the excessive pay awards of top executives, does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s comments today, or does he maintain his own response of a few weeks ago, that it is not a matter for him?

    The Prime Minister : I set out in the House, from memory, to the former right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and, before that, to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), my view that excessive pay awards are not justified. I equally maintain the point that that is a matter between employer and employee or company and management rather than a matter for the Government, but my personal view remains as first set out in the House to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in 1991.

    Mr. John Smith : The Prime Minister has clearly said contradictory things, because he told us that it was not a matter for him. Whatever he says, does he not notice that those top executives do not pay a blind bit of notice? They carry on regardless, relentlessly increasing their pay and their perks. At the same time, pay restraint is imposed on millions of people with modest incomes. Is that not inconsistent, unfair and hypocritical?

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have said precisely the same thing on that issue and, as I indicated to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and he might have the grace to acknowledge, I first said it in 1991.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister yet appreciate the anger felt throughout the country at massive pay increases for top people occurring at the same time as massive tax increases for the rest of the country? Why are the Government so soft and indulgent on the very rich but hard and unfair on everyone else?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has returned to the same point three times after having two answers, I will now quote to him what I said to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in 1991 :

    “I made it perfectly clear when I was Chief Secretary that I do not believe that excessive salary increases are right.”–[ Official Report , 1991 ; Vol. 193, c. 857.]

    That still remains my view. [Interruption.] For the hon. Gentleman who shouts, “What are you going to do about it?” may I say that this happens to be a free capitalist country, in which companies determine their wages. I take it from this that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would himself interfere with companies in the payment of employees and the payment of management by the companies themselves. If that is so, it blows out of the water any of the Labour party’s modernising ideas of understanding free enterprise.

    Mr. Churchill : Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week’s sacking of 7,000 British soldiers from the Army is deeply regrettable, and indeed mistaken, bearing in mind that the British commander of the UN force in Bosnia has now repeated three times his request for more troops? Can my right hon. Friend now give a positive response to that request by a British general in the field?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we set out the position in “Options for Change” some time ago and the redundancies that were announced–

    Mr. Churchill indicated dissent.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend may shake his head, but it happens to be a matter of fact and record. We set out the decisions on “Options for Change”, and this measure implemented that decision, taken some time ago.

    As for the request for troops in Bosnia, my hon. Friend will know that we have a significant contingent already in Bosnia, who have done magnificent work. If a request is made to the United Kingdom, we would of course consider providing more forces proportionately as part of a wider international effort.

    Mr. Ashdown : May we take it from that answer that our Prime Minister and our Government really are prepared to let go to waste the peace that has been obtained by General Rose in Sarajevo during the past two weeks, rather than this country backing a request, made by a British general and supported by his own chiefs of staff, for more troops to ensure that that peace succeeds?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman yet again mistakes the position. It was the British Government who moved troops in to Sarajevo to ensure that the peace negotiated by General Rose and the corralling of weapons brought about by General Rose was able to be properly monitored. For once, the right hon. Gentleman might have the grace to acknowledge what we have done rather than carp and criticise inaccurately.

    Mr. French : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the British economy is to remain competitive in the future, it is essential that our children are trained now in the skills that they will require in the 21st century? Will he therefore join me in welcoming the announcement of the 12 technology schools, one of which is in my constituency and one of which I attended?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right in his diagnosis. We certainly face greater competition in the years ahead and we will certainly need greater skills. One of the ways of obtaining them is the greater diversity in education brought about by the new technology colleges. I hope that many other schools and businesses will follow the lead set by those colleges.

     

    Q3. Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Dr. Wright : In the light of the Prime Minister’s emphasis on the importance of personal responsibility, does he welcome the clear statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will resign if his conduct is criticised by Lord Justice Scott’s report ? Will the Prime Minister make an equally clear statement and will he expect the same of other Ministers?

    The Prime Minister : I have said repeatedly that I propose to make no comment on Lord Justice Scott’s report. I propose to make no comment of any sort on Lord Justice Scott’s report until he has reported. I set up that report and I gave it very wide terms of reference. I have assured Lord Justice Scott– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Ms Armstrong.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. I have assured Lord Justice Scott that he will have the power and authority that he needs to complete his report satisfactorily, and I believe it follows from that that I should make no comment until I have that report.

     

    Q4. Mr. Anthony Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Coombs : Does my right hon. Friend welcome recent surveys which show that council tax bills this year will rise less than the rate of inflation? Does he agree that the revenue support grant settlement was correct in estimating needs for local councils, and is not that in stark contrast to the waste, inefficiency and nepotism of many Labour-controlled councils, especially that in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that the news that council tax bills are on average likely to rise less than the rate of inflation is very welcome indeed and I believe that it shows that the local government settlement was very finely judged. That is, of course, very different from what was said by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who predicted at the time that the council tax would rise by four times the level of inflation. Clearly, he was scaremongering or wrong, or both.

    Mr. Galloway : Does the Prime Minister have a message for Nabil Shaath, the chief Palestinian negotiator, who is in Parliament this afternoon? In view of the fact that, since last Friday’s massacre in Hebron, the Israeli army has shot down more people than were shot by the murderer in the mosque, will the Prime Minister support a protection force made up from the United Nations or at least the co-sponsors of the peace process to protect the Palestinians under illegal Israeli occupation?

    The Prime Minister : I think that violence from any source in that powder keg of the middle east is to be regretted, whether it comes from the dreadful massacre at Hebron or any other source. There are some United Nations observers there and I believe that they are doing an extremely good job. I had the opportunity of discussing that with the Secretary-General just the other day. What would be most helpful would be if, as soon as it seemed politically practicable, the two sides were to sit down again and continue with the negotiations that have made more progress in the past 18 months than for many years past. I believe that everyone wishes to see a comprehensive peace settlement that will enable the people who live there to live a decent, civilised and safe life.

     

    Q5. Sir John Hannam : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Sir John Hannam : During his visit to the United States, and remembering his excellent record as a former Minister with responsibility for the disabled, did my right hon. Friend observe the remarkable increase in the number of disabled people in America who are now attaining full, normal employment as a result of President Bush’s anti-discrimination legislation? Will my right hon. Friend support our efforts in the House further to remove the barriers facing disabled people?

    The Prime Minister : I share my hon. Friend’s desire to end discrimination against disabled people. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to identify further practicable and affordable ways to combat discrimination. There is much that may be done and I have asked my right hon. Friend to examine that matter.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 January 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had in the last six months regarding Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I discussed Kashmir at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October with the Prime Minister of Pakistan. We regularly raise Kashmir in our discussions with the Indian and Pakistan Governments.

     

    Arms Supplies (Iraq)

    Mr. Kaufman : To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken to ascertain who drew up the original draft of the letter about arms supplies to Iraq that he sent to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton on 17 February 1992 and who made deletions in that draft to alter it to the form in which the Prime Minister sent the aforesaid letter to the right hon. Member; what explanation he has received for the deletions; and what action he intends to take (a) in regard to responsibility for the deletions and (b) in regard to writing to the aforesaid right hon. Member to correct the false impression that he now acknowledges his letter gave.

    The Prime Minister : My Office has supplied Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry with the further information he requested. The issues arising are a matter for Lord Justice Scott. As will be apparent from my evidence to the inquiry, I do not accept that my letter to the right hon. Gentleman was misleading.

     

    Public Appointments

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister which public appointments are handled by the No. 10 appointments secretary.

    The Prime Minister : My appointments secretary assists me over a range of appointments in Church and state for which I am responsible, particularly those where the appointment is made by Her Majesty the Queen on my advice.

     

    New Year’s Honours List

    Mr. Bayley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a list of the people included in this year’s new year’s honours list with their place of residence by standard region and their occupation.

    The Prime Minister : No. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    British Empire Forces

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister where the records of all the soldiers of the British empire forces, who were sentenced to death during the first world war but whose sentences were subsequently commuted, are located; and if he will now arrange for them to be made available in the Public Record Office.

    The Prime Minister : The courts martial records of British service men who were sentenced to death during the first world war but whose sentences were subsequently commuted have regrettably not survived. The available evidence suggests they were lost when a German bomb hit the main war office and Army repository in 1940.

    The availability of the courts martial records of other British empire forces is a matter that should be pursued with each of the countries concerned.

     

    Government Successes (Criteria)

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what are the criteria by which Her Majesty’s Government will measure their success in 1994 Official Report, column 849 .

    The Prime Minister : By the success of our policies in all areas of national life.

     

    Back to Basics

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement giving details of the Government’s “back to basics” policy.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 January 1994 Official Report, column 849

     

    Ministers (Unsuitability for Office)

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the circumstances which render Ministers unsuitable to retain office.

    The Prime Minister : There can be a variety of circumstances but the main criterion should be whether the Minister can continue to perform the duties of office effectively.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 January.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 January.

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

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if, when he next meets President Clinton, he will discuss the report of the Harvard medical school team on child malnutrition and disease in Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : I expect to meet President Clinton during my visit to Washington at the end of February. The situation in Iraq may come up in our talks then. However, United Kingdom and United States officials are in regular touch over Iraq, including the humanitarian situation.

    I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 20 January Official Report, column 814 .

     

    Health Promotion, Wales

    Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to place in the Library a copy of his efficiency unit’s efficiency scrutiny of the delivery of health promotion in Wales.

    The Prime Minister : Copies of the efficiency scrutiny of health promotion in Wales were placed in the Library of the House on 1 April 1993.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 December 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st December 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Kashmir

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Pakistan on the policy the Pakistan Government intend to follow regarding Kashmir.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 30 November 1993] : I discussed Kashmir with Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Cyprus in October. I reaffirmed the United Kingdom Government’s view that the issue of Kashmir can be resolved only by bilateral negotiation between Pakistan and India. I therefore welcome the joint announcement by the Indian and Pakistani Governments that they will be conducting bilateral talks at senior official level in January.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministers’ Homes

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister in how many cases improvements made at public expense in the past five years to the private homes of Ministers, for reasons of personal security, have not been used wholly or mainly for those purposes.

    The Prime Minister : I am aware of no such case. Since November 1990, responsibility for the provision of security measures for public figures at threat from terrorist attack has rested with the Home Office. Before November 1990, the provision of security measures was the responsibility of the accounting officer advised by the police and the relevant departmental security officer.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Prime Minister how many houses or buildings attached to homes belonging to Ministers or their families which have been converted or improved at public expense for reasons of personal security have been the subject of professional fee payments out of public money in the last five years.

    The Prime Minister : Where security measures are provided at public expense to a person at threat from terrorist attack, professional fees will be paid if this offers the best value for money. It is not possible to identify every case where such fees have been paid.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out those matters in regard to exports to Iraq on which Ministers are prepared to give substantive answers while the Scott inquiry is sitting.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Justice Scott has terms of reference which allow him to look into all the issues which he regards as relevant to his inquiry. Ministers will continue to answer substantive questions where to do so would not prejudice the issues being investigated by the inquiry.

     

    Law and Order

    Mr. Llwyd : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to transfer responsibility for law and order concerns within Wales to the Secretary of State for Wales.

    The Prime Minister : The Government always keep departmental distribution of functions under review.

     

    Polly Peck

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister what activities were undertaken in northern Cyprus and the east Mediterranean directly or indirectly by Polly Peck for the United Kingdom Government between 1985 and 1990.

    The Prime Minister : I am not aware of any such activities having been undertaken. A full trawl of all Government Departments and agencies could not be carried out without incurring disproportionate cost.

     

    N M Rothschild

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the work obtained and the fees paid to N M Rothschild in the course of the Government’s privatisation programme since 1983.

    The Prime Minister : The table shows the Government appointments made to N M Rothschild in privatisations since 1983. The fees paid are a matter of commercial confidentiality. Appointments for adviser to the Government are made following full competition. The Government’s consistent practice has been to select the firm offering the best value for money.

    N M Rothschild privatisation appointments

    Privatisation |Year |Appointment

    —————————————————————————————-

    BT |1984 |Underwriter

    Britoil |1985 |Underwriter

    British Gas |1986 |Adviser to Government Underwriter

    Royal Ordnance |1987 |Adviser to Government

    British Airways |1987 |Underwriter

    Rolls-Royce |1987 |Underwriter

    BAA |1987 |Underwriter

    British Petroleum |1987 |Adviser to Government Underwriter

    British Steel |1988 |Underwriter

    Water |1989 |Underwriter

    Regional Electricity |1990 |Underwriter Companies

    BT |1991 |Member of French syndicate

    Northern Ireland |ongoing |Adviser to Government Electricity

    British Coal |ongoing |Adviser to Government

     

    Matrix Churchill Trial

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 4 February, Official Report, column 472, how much of the evidence of the key witness was given in response to questions which referred to the disclosed documents.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 February 1993] : As I indicated in my answer of 4 February, I suggest matters relevant to the Matrix Churchill trial should await the outcome of Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry.

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister how he intends to monitor the commitment of the Prime Minister of India to respect human rights in Kashmir.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 February 1993] : During my visit, I encouraged the Indian Prime Minister to allow international human rights organisations and others to visit Kashmir. We shall continue to monitor the situation through our high commission in Delhi, through our contacts with human rights organisations and through media reports. We shall continue to raise human rights issues with the Indian Government.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 January 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Cox : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the issue of the status of Kashmir and the human rights of Kashmiri people with the Indian Prime Minister during his forthcoming visit to India.

    The Prime Minister : I expect my discussions with the Indian Prime Minister to include the situation in Kashmir and our concerns about human rights.

     

    Arabic-speaking Adviser

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint an Arabic -speaking adviser as part of the staff in 10 Downing Street.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to do so.

     

    Office Running Costs

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by him to limit or reduce the cost of running of his office.

    The Prime Minister : My office is subject to the same efficiency and value-for-money initiatives as the rest of the civil service. Between 1989-90 and 1991-92, the cost of running my office fell by just over 2 per cent. in real terms.

     

    CD-ROM

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements are in place for Government Departments to offer financial assistance for CD-ROM applications for blind and visually impaired people; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Department for Education is providing £40,000 for the development of software which will enable blind and partially-sighted people to gain full access to CD-ROM materials. This is being undertaken in collaboration with the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Open university and will be completed later this year. The software will be published by the Royal National Institute for the Blind.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Director General of CBI – 25 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Director General of the CBI, Howard Davies, held in New Delhi on Monday 25th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I say at the outset how delighted I am to have been invited to be India’s guest on Republic Day, I believe it is the first occasion that a British Prime Minister has been invited and honoured in this fashion and I am delighted to have had such a remarkable privilege.

    I think in one sense this does indicate with great clarity the changing and improving relationship between India and the United Kingdom. What is equally clear and has been wholly clear to me in my discussions today, is the extent to which India is changing and opening its doors a good deal more widely to the world. It is no coincidence, I believe, that shortly after I leave President Yeltsin will be arriving and Chancellor Kohl will be there very shortly after that.

    I have had the opportunity today to have discussions with the President, with the Vice-President, with the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister of Finance and the Minister for External Affairs. It is absolutely clear to me that relations between the two countries have I believe never been closer since Independence. There are nearly 1 million people of Indian origin living in Britain, they play a very prominent part in the life of the United Kingdom. We have a very large amount of foreign investment in India, our exports last year to India were very nearly 1 billion pounds and India of course remained by far our largest aid recipient.

    My reasons for coming here, apart from the invitation, were threefold; firstly political, second economic, and thirdly commercial. Politically I have been able to reaffirm our support for India’s deep-rooted democracy, I think it is extremely important and remarkable achievements have been made over the past 40 years or so. In particular I welcome the strength with which the Indian government has reaffirmed its commitment to the rule of law, to the secular constitution and to tolerance and protection for minorities.

    In our discussions today I have reaffirmed our cooperation, our joint cooperation, in the fight against terrorism and I have confirmed also that we are fully committed to using our law to this end.

    I have had the opportunity, with the Prime Minister in particular, of discussing the issue of greatest concern to them and their neighbour Pakistan – namely Kashmir. I believe that is essentially an issue for the two governments themselves to resolve, albeit with the strong encouragement of their friends. The principles which underlie our approach to this problem I think are well known, we wish to see a dialogue between India and Pakistan, a genuine political process in Kashmir and respect for human rights and an end to external support for violence in Kashmir.

    On the economic front I was very pleased to hear from the Prime Minister of India’s determination to pursue her programme of economic reform and liberalisation. That is not something we would have heard just a few years ago, today it is a very clear clarion call to the future that forms a central part of India’s policies. And one of the things that emerged from my discussions and from the separate discussions with British businessmen has been the commitment of all concerned to that reform and the belief that that reform is already bringing results. I believe that India will see the benefits of her perseverance in terms of large scale support from the IMF and more relevantly in terms of economic results here in India. We have as a country very long-standing commercial ties with India, but one change that economic reform has certainly brought about is that it is now much easier for private sector companies to do business directly with the private sector in India and they are certainly very keen to do so.

    I have brought with me to India one of the most senior groups of British businessmen ever to come to India and with them Howard Davies, the Director General of the CBI. Some very significant contracts are under discussion. I am certainly delighted to tell you that British Gas has this afternoon agreed a 100 million pound joint venture project with the gas authority of India for a natural gas distribution project in Bombay. And British Aerospace has today signed an agreement with Hindustan Aeronautics for software. A number of other contracts are being discussed and are due for agreement. We want to build on that, by we I mean the governments of India and the United Kingdom and the private sector in both countries as well. We seek to translate India’s economic reform into a revitalised commercial relationship.

    Yesterday, British businessmen met their opposite numbers in business and also met senior government officials. They have launched their initiative, they have launched a partnership initiative led not by government but by the private sector. On our side the group will help increase awareness in Britain of the opportunities to do business with India. Prime Minister Rao and I have agreed this morning to give this initiative our personal support and we have asked for a report on the progress made, and the achievements made, critically the achievements made, to be given to us at the end of this year and I have no doubt that Howard Davies will say a little more about this in a minute. But it is that partnership that will lead to more investment and to more exports. Each of the businessmen has said that he will be pursuing the contacts made during this visit and those of you who may have spoken to the businessmen will know how enthusiastic they are about the opportunities opening up.

    India already is the world’s 14th largest economy. Other countries are already moving to build on the opportunities that that represents. British investment in India will help India’s economic reform, export growth will lead our domestic recovery, there is a joint interest that both of us wish to exploit. We have as two countries an historic relationship. In this visit we have been looking to develop a modern partnership as well and I believe it has been very fruitful and we have begun to do that.

    MR DAVIES:

    For the benefit of Indian journalists here I should point out that the CBI in England is not the Central Bureau of Investigation and emphasise the Prime Minister is not under investigation, not from me.

    From the business point of view, this has been an outstandingly successful trip. The Prime Minister has announced two particular deals involving British Gas and British Aerospace, I mentioned a third yesterday involving Cadbury’s increased investment in India.

    British Gas have today reached agreement with the gas authority of India to form a joint venture company to supply natural gas to the city of Bombay. The investment by the new company will total around 100 million pounds but the significance of the agreement is broader since it puts British Gas in pole position in the development of natural gas in India which could lead to between 1.5 – 2 billion pounds worth of business in the longer term. And there will be many opportunities within those contracts for other British suppliers.

    British Aerospace signed a contract today with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited to found a joint software company, it involves a satellite link between Bangalore and Warton in Lancashire so that software engineers and designers in India may work jointly with their colleagues in Britain. Clearly that is a further strengthening of the link between the aerospace industries of India and the UK.

    Other companies on the team have been in active negotiation around the main meeting and much other progress has been made, further important contracts are expected in power generation and elsewhere.

    All these negotiations have been hugely assisted by the Prime Minister’s presence here and by the access to decision-makers that that has guaranteed for the business team. We have had a very interesting programme and we are extremely grateful to the Indian side for their hospitality and indeed for the patience with which they have answered our detailed questions.

    I mentioned yesterday our meeting with the businessmen and the Permanent Secretaries on Sunday. Today the business team met the Ministers of Commerce and Finance and then we collectively reported back on our discussion to the two Prime Ministers, a very unusual type of meeting but which was a great privilege for us. We said that we had been very impressed by the commitment to liberalisation and reform, this had been evidenced by all the Indians we had met. We did, however, press for further progress on liberalisation and indeed suggested a private sector-led initiative to raise the awareness in Britain of opportunities for trade and investment in India, matched by a similar effort over here. We believe the timing for such an initiative is exactly right since the opening of the Indian market gives a lot of encouragement to British companies who have been here already and who propose to invest.

    The British effort will be led by Robert Evans, the Chairman of British Gas, with CBI help and the Prime Minister has agreed to support, provide a secretariat and other assistance, for that initiative and that applies on both sides. We will report back to the Prime Ministers in a year on the progress made and the group of business people here are very committed to pursuing that.

    Particularly perhaps of interest to the British press, a couple of hours ago in London the CBI’s most recent quarterly industrial trend survey was issued. It showed the sharpest increase in business confidence for 5 years with strong optimism about export prospects. One-third of manufacturers were more optimistic about exports than four months ago. Prices in export markets for British manufacturers are not a problem, the main remaining restraint on exports reported by 40 percent of companies is political and economic conditions abroad. That from the business point of view is the context for this visit, the government in partnership with industry trying to create more favourable conditions for British exports and investment. We have been asking for more government support for exporters for some time and now we are getting it. The business group is very chipper as a result and for a number of them this has been a nice little earner and I cannot translate that into the Anglo-Indian idiom.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Dubai Gulf News):

    During your meeting today with the British media, you are reported to have told them by way of explaining the British Government’s position on Kashmir, that any solution to the Kashmir issue should take account among other things of the aspirations of the people – I think you used the expression “the population of Kashmir”. My question is would you please elaborate what you meant by this particular word “aspirations”, whether it is another word for “referendum” and did you discuss this with the Indian Government as apparently in your opening remarks you did not make any reference to that particular word “aspirations”?

    Secondly, by “Kashmir” do you mean all the parts in India and Pakistan?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not quite sure from where you got that quote or what detailed interview people are supposed to be referring to but it is certainly a novelty to me. Yes, I did discuss the matter with the Prime Minister this morning; I discussed it privately as an old friend of India, indeed as an old friend of Pakistan as well, we are all members of the Commonwealth.

    I don’t believe advice on how to deal with this problem best comes publicly from third party governments. Any comments in detail I may have upon it I think are best given privately to the Prime Ministers concerned and that, other than the general position I set: out in my statement, is what I will maintain.

    QUESTION (Charles Wright, Evening Standard):

    Prime Minister, can I ask you just on a domestic note since Howard Davies has mentioned it, your reaction to that rather encouraging CBI quarterly trend survey and on a less happy note here, your thoughts about the stories about various terrorist threats?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I can deal with the domestic matter first, I am clearly delighted. I have not had a chance yet to study all the details of the survey but one of the necessary ingredients for lasting recovery is confidence amongst companies at home about their prospects at home and their prospects to export. If that confidence is there, the other basic ingredients encouraging people to develop their companies and for the economy to grow are clearly in place: lower interest rates than we have had for a long time; the inflation rate well under control, far lower than we have had for a long time; and also a very competitive exchange rate so the ingredients for investment and for recovery are there. The missing ingredient for a long time has been the confidence amongst businessmen themselves that they will be able to build on the economic scene at home. So to that extent, it is very good news indeed that we have this survey showing such dramatically increased confidence; I look forward to it being translated into dramatically increased action and that of course is a matter for the private sector. I very much hope that they will be able to do that.

    On the second half of your question, I am entirely content with the security arrangements that have been made here. We had been in touch with the Indian authorities for some time about security matters during this visit and all those discussions have been entirely satisfactory.

    I think probably the threats you refer to come specifically from our commitment to the extradition treaty. I have no reservation about that treaty whatsoever. We, by which I mean the Indian Government and the British Government, are two governments amongst many that have to deal with international terrorism. Terrorism is a problem that each and every government across the world will need to combat and they will often need to coordinate their efforts so I don’t believe any threats, wherever they may come from or for whatever reason they may come, change the necessity to deal with the terrorist threat in each and every country around the world so I am perfectly content with the security arrangements that have been made.

    QUESTION (BBC):

    Prime Minister, you have made a friendly offer of help, if invited by Pakistan and India, in resolving the Kashmir dispute. If invited, how do you envisage the role of the United Kingdom, in what capacity in that unresolved problem? If not resolved during a period, what kind of pressure or what kind of persuasion do you think you can exercise?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am glad you asked that question because it enables me to clarify a misunderstanding that I have certainly seen reported in a number of newspapers.

    At no stage have we suggested or have I had it in my mind to suggest that Britain should be an intermediary between Pakistan and India. At no stage has that been our intention and at no stage has that suggestion been made.

    This difficult and intractable problem will not, I believe, be solved by an intermediary; it will be solved by the governments of India and Pakistan.

    What we have said is that as longstanding and close friends of both countries, as a senior member of the Commonwealth, we are keen to see them get together and do what they can to solve the problem and if they believe that there is any way in which we or others can assist, then we are there prepared to be asked for that assistance but it is not for us to artificially offer to broker a solution. I don’t believe that would be appropriate, we have not done it and we are not going to do it.

    QUESTION (IMPAH):

    Mr. Prime Minister, did you talk to the Government of India about Indo-British military cooperation because their latest problem is about the Air Jet trainer? Did you speak to the Prime Minister about that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We spoke about a number of matters including that one, yes.

    QUESTION (LADY ALSO FROM IMPAH):

    Prime Minister, some temples were demolished in your country recently. What action is your government contemplating on that if any at all?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Wherever people break the law, they are subjected to the rigours of the law and all such matters of that sort are investigated by the police and where appropriate, action is taken. Our law requires that and that is what happens.

    SAME LADY:

    Is your government planning any action or why hasn’t taken any action so far?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a matter for the police. Where action like that occurs, it is a matter for the police and the police will and are dealing with it.

    QUESTION (TV Asia, London):

    With more than one million Indians settled in Britain, would it not have been encouraging if you had included an Indian businessman in your delegation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It wasn’t entirely my delegation. I would have been delighted to have brought an Indian businessman with me and perhaps on a future occasion I will be able to do so.

    I am delighted that the Indians are playing a much greater role both in the business community and increasingly in politics in the United Kingdom. I think there have been very great advances on both those fronts over the last few years and I thoroughly welcome that.

    I hope on a future occasion we will have some Indian businessmen but I suppose it is possible that they may think their contacts here perhaps don’t require them to come with me!

    QUESTION (Yugoslavian News Agency TANYUK):

    Mr. Prime Minister, recently you said to the “Hindustan Times” that Great Britain is playing a leading role in resolving the Yugoslavian crisis. Tell me please, what are you going to do about this Croatian aggression in the United Nations protected areas populated by Serbs where in two or three days many Serb civilians were killed?

    Secondly, are you actually going to take steps towards lifting the unjustified sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or are you going to persuade and continue the politics of punishing Serbian people only because they did not agree to and the degradation of their country?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With respect, I am not entirely sure I agree with some of the premises upon which you base that question. I think some of them are contentious and you will be unsurprised to know that I don’t accept them.

    As for our position on the general crisis in Yugoslavia, I think there are several points that I might justifiably make about the position of the British Government.

    Firstly, the London Conference and the Vance-Owen peace proposals spring essentially from the conference I chaired during our Presidency of the European Community. The Vance-Owen team have made far more progress, I think, than many people may have imagined. There is still more to be done; there is still no agreement on the maps that they, have presented to the various parties but the progress that they have made thus far has been astonishing; few people would have expected it; I am delighted it has taken place and they must continue their work. I believe a political settlement is the only satisfactory conclusion that we will get out of the present difficulties that exist in Yugoslavia.

    The second point I would make is about the immense degree of hardship faced by many people especially – not universally but especially – in Bosnia and I believe the part that the United Kingdom has taken in the delivery of humanitarian aid both by the humanitarian agencies and provided by the United Kingdom and also provided by others – but a very large amount of the aid, the medicines and the food was provided by the United Kingdom – and also the fact that we have far more troops working to assist the delivery of humanitarian aid in Bosnia than any other country shows that in a raft of ways we have played a leading role in seeking to bring this affair to a conclusion and to minimise suffering until such time as it does end.

    On the specific point about Croatia, I think the right way to deal with the problems in Croatia and elsewhere is through the Vance-Owen dialogue and I know that is being pursued.

    QUESTION (Business Standard, Calcutta):

    I would like to know whether the recent communal disturbances in India have in any way influenced British perceptions on investment in India and also whether Britain would like to influence public opinion in the West on this issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Why ask me when you have the Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry here? I will ask Howard to reply.

    HOWARD DAVIES:

    I think that it has not. British business people have been concerned by those disturbances because of the human cost which is upsetting to business people in Britain as it is elsewhere but we do not interpret that as being about the economic reform programme and we have been assured that that programme proceeds so I think that we as business people not wishing to involve ourselves in purely political matters have set that aside and have concentrated on what we have heard from the Government about the reform programme. Nobody who was planning to come on the trip didn’t come as a result of that news so we have pressed on regardless.

    QUESTION (Economic Times):

    You mentioned a lot of interest of the business delegation and all this has come without any progress on our labour laws. Has there been some assurance from our Government regarding something done on this or are the labour laws not so important for the British businessmen?

    Secondly, Mr. Prime Minister, there were some reports saying that there was some softening or a more sympathetic stance from the British towards India’s views on the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What discussions regarding this have you had with our Prime Minister and what are your views?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Clearly, every aspect of economic relations dealing with competition in the country is of interest to us so we are very keen to see the liberalisation in all its aspects that the Indian Government are moving towards.

    I believe the extent to which they have moved in the last two years has astonished many people and delighted India’s friends and I am in no doubt after my discussions today that the Government propose to move more towards liberalisation. Clearly, they will have to take some things at a measured pace and it is not for me to predict which measures they will deal with most speedily but I think they are very conscious of the need for changes.

    On the Non-Proliferation Treaty, I think everyone around the world wishes to see the extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What I have said is that I can understand the difficulties faced by a number of countries in particular circumstances. I understand India’s position on the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I would still like India and Pakistan and other countries – the 32 who have not yet signed it – I would like to see all those countries signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The more one gets non-proliferation as a common cause, the easier it is for the two superpowers in particular but the other nuclear weapon-holders as well to begin increasingly to scale down their own nuclear capacity and believe that is something that every sane person would wish to see.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, are you aware of the sentiments of British Hindus regarding the closing of a Rama Krishna temple in London?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I have not had any discussion with them about that. I am aware of the case but I have had no discussions with them about it but very probably the Home Secretary will have done and he was here very recently; he may well have responded to questions like that.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, after talking with your Indian counterpart, I think you are satisfied with India’s new economic policy. In 1997, Hong Kong is going to China. Will you advise your Hong Kong people or Indian people that India is the right place, “You have no need to go to UK or USA for settlement, India is the right place for investment!”?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a lot of investment available in a number of countries and if I may restrict myself to India, I think there are many very good reasons for looking to the future of India with confidence and for deciding that now is a good time to invest in India but it is easy, if I may say so, for a politician to say that. More relevant is the fact that with me are a series of businessmen who are not only prepared to say that but at this moment they are prepared to commit themselves, their companies, their future and their money confident in the future of India. I believe they have made a wise judgement in doing that.