The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Pakistan

  • 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 Comments on the General Election – 14 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the General Election, made during an interview in Lahore on 14th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why he didn’t just call a General Election now].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    People won’t have to wait too long, will they? There is an election coming soon and I will have the election when I think it is appropriate to have it.

    As far as being run ragged is concerned, if the Opposition are so energetic they might actually sort out their policies, that would be rather agreeable and then we could have an election about policy which would be a very good idea.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was at a disadvantage because he didn’t have a Parliamentary majority going into a General Election].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a great advantage to go into an election with the best economy in western Europe and we took the measures in the early part of this parliament to try and produce the best economy in western Europe and that is precisely what we have produced. We have now got very low inflation, we have got unemployment falling very dramatically over the last three years, we have got interest rates at a relatively low level, we have got very high growth and you seen the reputation that Britain has abroad and the strength of its commerce and industry.

    We have achieved that because of many things that made us unpopular, things that were bitterly opposed by the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, but you can now see that they are working and I think it is right to let people see that they are working in the last few months of this parliament so they can make a mature judgement. They may say, “We didn’t like what the Tories did, it was very uncomfortable!” – and some if it was, I concede that – but people can now increasingly see why we did it and as the economy gets better, they can see the fruits of having done it and I think it is right to wait for those and I’ll call the election when I’m ready.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if people would really change their minds that swiftly].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They changed their minds pretty swiftly in the last General Election campaign and I suspect that they will on this particular occasion. People are going to focus on this when they actually have to ask themselves the fundamental question, “Things are now going well, are they not?” to which the answer is “Yes, do we wish to risk that and perhaps throw it away with a leap into the dark?”. I think they will answer to that question “No!” and that question becomes sharper as we get nearer to the election and it becomes very sharp indeed once the election campaign proper really begins.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was ready to go to the country if a Parliamentary occurrence demanded it].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Conservative Party is ready for the election whenever it comes. We would prefer to have the election a little later, I suspect that we will have it a little later because we wish to see the effect of our policies flow through, but if you mean are we organisationally ready for whenever I wish to call the election, the answer is yes.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Lahore – 14 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Pakistan-UK Investment 2000 Seminar, held in Lahore on Tuesday 14th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prime Minister, Ministers, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen. I am delighted to be here this morning at this seminar and I am extremely grateful to the Prime Minister for joining us here on this occasion. I think that will be very much appreciated by all our guests from the United Kingdom.

    I think, as some of you may have known, I had hoped to return later on this morning for the closing session. But Parliament is a hard task-master and recently scheduled Parliamentary business means that I dare not fail to be back in time to vote in London this evening. So I hope you will understand the exigencies of that, but I no doubt will get a very full and detailed report of your discussions later on this morning.

    I have to say that there were people in London, hard to imagine it but there were people in London who thought that given the present political uncertainty in Pakistan and the imminence of a British general election some time before 1 May, but not I can exclusively reveal before 3 February, some people thought that perhaps I should have stayed in the United Kingdom and not come on this particular visit. Well let me say I didn’t agree with them, I think they are profoundly wrong. I think there were some very sound reasons for coming and I would like just to illustrate one or two of them.

    The relationship between the United Kingdom and Pakistan is very long-standing, very long-standing in business, in intertwined history, in many cultural and legal matters, as well as in many parts of the country with a shared language. And the reality is Pakistan is going through a difficult phase as it comes up to the general election. Well I don’t believe you just stand by your friends in the easy times, friends visit friends at the difficult times as well and I think that was the second reason for being here at the moment.

    There are in any event some very good, very hard-headed reasons for pressing ahead. There is tremendous untapped potential in Pakistan, potential for the people of Pakistan, for the development of Pakistan, for growing prosperity in Pakistan, and as a result of that for inward investment from the United Kingdom in Pakistan as well.

    Our commercial relationship is clearly very substantial now; it is going to be far more substantial in the future. But I don’t believe that a commercial relationship based on history is remotely sufficient. The global market base is more intensely competitive for trade and investment every year. And what we need to ensure, and by we I mean the Pakistan government, the British government, businessmen in Pakistan and businessmen in. the United Kingdom, what we need to ensure is that our relationship stays thoroughly up-to-date if we are to make sure that the right investment takes place, that that is satisfactory and that that is competitive in the present world market.

    Ian Lang, the President of the Board of Trade, and r have brought with us a very powerful delegation of leading British businessmen. They are in essence the decision-takers. Some of them have very long interests here already, others are exploring the opportunities for a new market. It is clear to me from what they have said to me, of what they have seen and what they know of the country, that they share my view of the enormous promise that exists for the future development of Pakistan. They recognise the potential of a country with the highest average GDP growth in South Asia over the last 15 years and perhaps the most liberal and deregulated economy in the region, though there, as in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, there is still scope for further improvement in the future that we all look forward to seeing.

    And the recent trade and investment record between our two countries is impressive. In terms of investment, the United Kingdom is poised to become Pakistan’s leading overseas investor in both of the last two years. British companies have invested more in Pakistan than any other country has done. Indeed last year 30 percent of all new foreign investment in Pakistan was from the United Kingdom. And in terms of trade, bilateral, trade is now worth nearly 1 billion pounds sterling a year – up by nearly 50 percent since 1990.

    Now those are astonishing figures. But if I may say so, I think they only scratch the surface of what is possible in the years to come, and one of the reasons for this seminar is to make sure that that potential is fully tapped. I can see every prospect of the growth continuing provided, and in business and politics there is always a provided, sometimes more provided in politics than business I discover, but provided that businessmen can plan on the basis of sound and determined economic policies, and the prospect of real returns for their investment in both the medium term as well as the short term.

    And perhaps there are some other key requirements as well, well understood and acknowledged, I know, by those I have spoken to over the last few days in Pakistan.

    First, political stability is clearly vital for investment, both domestic investment and certainly for inward investment. And I strongly support, Prime Minister, your present efforts. In the end, trade and investment will only flourish in the long term against a stable political background.

    And second, of course, rapid follow through. Businessmen are sometimes impatient. Having started upon a deal they are quite keen to finish it and I think that is a highly desirable way to proceed. So in practice, contracts awarded in principle need to be concluded and carried forward in practice for the general benefit of all, and that is the way in which businessmen will have a firm basis on which to plan.

    And third, and I was delighted to hear what the Prime Minister had to say, continued liberalisation and deregulation leading to progressively freer trade. We in the West do not have entirely clean hands on the question of free trade, there are still barriers to trade in Western Europe that need to be lifted. I am certainly in the business of making sure that they are lifted and I hope progressively they can be lifted in Asia and other markets as well. The sooner collectively we can move towards wholly free trade around the world, the greater will be the flow of trade and the greater will be the benefits to people in every corner of our world.

    But of course trade and investment, self-evidently good for business, is self-evidently of benefit to both sides but to the wider community as well. They have a trickle down effect, bringing benefits to the whole society, they promote wider regional stability. And I see very great benefits for all South Asian countries in continuing to pursue moves towards-greater regional trade and cooperation, particularly perhaps through SAARC. A great deal has been done, more needs to be done and very much hope that it will be done.

    This is a special year for Pakistan, the Golden Jubilee Year. Over the next 12 months we shall be working hard on a series of commercial events, both to mark this special year for Pakistan and to boost our commercial relationship further. Let me illustrate some of the things that will be happening very briefly. In March the Royal Yacht is due to visit Karachi. The Lord Mayor of London will lead a series of business seminars on board the Royal Yacht dealing with financial services, oil, gas, environmental technology. There will be trade missions coming to Pakistan from British Invisibles, the Southern Asia Advisory Group and the London and Sussex Chambers of Commerce to name but some, others will be arriving as well. The British Council will be organising a series of special exhibitions and other events, all leading up of course to the visit of Her Majesty The Queen in October of this year.

    So that is a very substantial series of events that will take place to mark the Golden Jubilee. I hope we will see the Golden Jubilee as something not just marking 50 years of past success, but beginning to put in place the prospects for much greater success and a much closer business and political relationship in the future.

    So it is, Prime Minister, going to be a very busy year for all of us. I have every confidence that it can be a very rewarding year as well. The Ministry for Industry and the Prime Minister in their remarks a few moments ago both spoke of the nostalgia of the past and the shared elements of history between Pakistan and the United Kingdom. That is very important, it provides a background upon which we can build. But more important is looking forward to what can yet be achieved. If we look forward, if we plan securely and carefully then I think our joint trading and investment prospects are very bright indeed in the future. What has been done is impressive, what can be done is almost unlimited.

    That, Prime Minister, is our purpose in being here today, to make sure in some small way today that those opportunities are taken in the future. I hope they will be, I know that they can be and I wish you well in bringing them to fruition.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Lahore – 14 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Lahore on Tuesday 14th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly extend my thanks to the Government of Pakistan and to the people for the very warm hospitality that Norma and I have enjoyed over the last couple of days. It has been a trip I have long looked forward to and one I will look back on with a great deal of pleasure for a long time.

    The principal focus of the visit was to advance the rapidly-growing trading and commercial interests between the United Kingdom and Pakistan. Our trade flow has increased by about 50 per cent in the last few years and British investment in Pakistan has gone up by almost four times in the last three years or so. What I am anxious to see and what the Government are anxious to see as well is that growth in trade and mutual interests continuing again in the future. I brought with me a very distinguished group of businessmen. A great deal of work has gone on and I hope that will both add to the trade flow and add to the investment flow in the months that lie ahead.

    I also had the opportunity of lengthy discussions both with the prime minister and the president and with a number of other prominent political personalities and I found those extremely useful and extremely valuable.

    The principal feeling that I have as I come to the conclusion of this tour is that despite all that has been done to enrich the relationship over recent years, there is still far more that can be built upon and the opportunity of a much wider and deeper trading and commercial relationship is there to be taken providing the British Government, the Pakistan government and British and Pakistani business are determined that it shall be so. I think they are.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you spoke earlier on at the seminar and you mentioned political stability. Political stability is obviously conditional on regional stability. Has the UK Government made any suggestions to the prime minister or the president of Pakistan to move in that direction and what would those suggestions be?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That matter was discussed both with the prime minister and with the president and I think up to a point you are right, regional stability obviously adds to domestic political stability though from the point of the businessmen it is domestic political stability that they are most concerned about but yes, we did discuss those matters, they are essentially matters for Pakistan not for an outsider to deal in but where we can offer help, encouragement and assistance we will be happy to do so.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what are your views about the Kashmir issue and in the present circumstances how can it be solved and how can you help Pakistan and India?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I discussed that issue at some length with the president and I think the president subsequently indicated the nature of our discussion.

    There are three essential parties to a solution to the Kashmir issue: the government of Pakistan, the government of India and the people themselves who live in Kashmir. All of those three are going to have an important part in deciding whether there can be a solution.

    Self-evidently, one wants to ensure that comprehensive talks take place. I very much hope that will be possible soon, I hope the governments will be able to get together, I hope they will be able to take full account of the views of the people who actually live in Kashmir. If external help and assistance is required, where it is thought it might be appropriate if we are asked we will be happy to lend a hand but essentially the agreement is going to have to be reached in this part of the world; it cannot be imposed, it must take account of the people who live in Kashmir and it is undoubtedly going to require skill, wisdom and courage by both governments.

    I hope that it will be possible to move forward because to follow up the question from your colleague a few moments ago, if the Kashmir problem were to be be solved over the next few years – and nobody should doubt the difficulties of it – I think that would be a key, not the only key but a key to unlocking a great deal of greater stability, investment and prosperity in the years to come.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview at the Khyber Pass – 13 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview at the Khyber Pass, held on Monday 13th January 1997.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, give us your impression, if you would, particularly on the work that is going on here to try and reduce the drug trade?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The work here is clearly vital. One of the most important drug routes, one of the most damaging drug routes, is coming from Afghanistan, through Pakistan and then on to Northern Europe. And one of the principal activities that is being carried out here is to prevent those drugs getting through. There has been a considerable amount of success. We have been working with the Drug Enforcement Agencies in Pakistan for some time, providing helicopters and equipment, and I wished today to have a look at precisely what was being done to see in what further ways we can help.

    QUESTION:

    Looking at the statistics though does look as though anybody who tries to tackle this is fighting a losing battle?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there has been a lot of success. Quite a few tonnes, quite literally many tonnes of heroin and hashish and other drugs have actually been stopped and captured. A large number of drug processing laboratories have been identified and destroyed and that work is continuing and indeed that work is accelerating at the moment. There is a huge amount to do. You only have to look at the nature of the terrain to see the difficulty of the task, and the drugs are coming across the Afghan hills from Afghanistan and coming through this pretty wild and remote area en route to Northern Europe. So there is a huge amount to be done, but a great deal is being done and the contacts between the High Commission here, our Drug Enforcement Agencies and the Drug Enforcement Agencies in Pakistan are very close.

    QUESTION:

    Are you putting more resources in, having seen the nature and the scale of the problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, when we identify precisely what is needed. There is no question of putting resources in for the sake of resources. We have increased resources with some more equipment shortly to be added to the helicopters we have provided before. And we will liaise, and where we can identify a shortfall in equipment that is needed then of course we will consider putting it in.

    QUESTION:

    But the nature and scale of the problem that is being faced by Northern Europe is immense, is it not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is immense, but of course all the drugs don’t come through this route. Some of them come from Latin America and we have already taken action to block off the route from Latin America to the Eastern Caribbean to northern Europe. Now we must make sure that there is similar firm action taken here. A lot has been done, more may need to be done, I am here to look at what needs to be done and then we will make our judgments.

  • Mr Major’s Response to Toast in Islamabad – 12 January 1997

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s response at a toast during a banquet held in Islamabad on Sunday 12th January 1997.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is an honour and a pleasure to be here tonight. In keeping with the spirit of economy and modesty shown by the present caretaker government, I shall keep my remarks brief.

    I am delighted to be visiting Pakistan at the start of your Golden Jubilee. Through those years, the United Kingdom has proved itself to be one of Pakistan’s leading friends and supporters. As long-standing partners, we know each other well, and we work well together. I am glad to have this opportunity to reaffirm the continuing importance we in Britain attach to our relationship with you.

    Pakistan is presently passing through a period of political change.

    But my central message this evening is that the United Kingdom remains fully committed to supporting Pakistan’s development as a prosperous, liberal and democratic Islamic state.

    Over the years, democracy in Pakistan has had its false starts and its reversals, as well as its memorable successes. But above all it has had an accumulating momentum. As a friend of Pakistan, I felt it important to come here now, notwithstanding the uncertainty, and indeed in part precisely because of it.

    So I salute your commitment, Prime Minister, to holding elections within ninety days, as set out in the Constitution. Friends of Pakistan look to you, and to the members and leaders of Pakistan’s political parties, to hold and take part in elections next month which are, and are seen to be, free and fair. We look to you all to set Pakistan on its feet once more. I wish all the parties contesting the elections well. Britain, like other members of the international community, will be sending observers to watch the election process.

    Britain’s commitment to Pakistan is unstinting; and our histories are entwined closely together. But the reason for the closeness of our connection today is not just historical. We are with you not for sentimental or historical reasons We are with you for hard, modern reasons.

    That is why I have come to Pakistan with my colleague Ian Lang, the President of the Board of Trade, and a team of senior British businessmen. They have come because they recognise Pakistan as a market of promise, with the highest average GDP growth in South Asia over the last 15 years, and perhaps the region’s most liberal and de-regulated economy. Some of the companies they represent have long-term investments here already; others are looking at the opportunities.

    In the last two years, British companies have invested more in Pakistan than has any other country. In 1995 – the last figures we have – Pakistan exported more to Britain than we did to you. Last year, 30 per cent of all new foreign investment was British. There could hardly be more concrete evidence of our commitment to Pakistan’s market. Bilateral trade is now worth over a billion dollars a year, up nearly 50 per cent since 1990.

    The picture on investment is equally striking. Over the past two years, Britain has invested more in Pakistan than any other country. Today, the UK is poised to become Pakistan’s top overseas investor.

    What British businessmen and investors will continue to look for are sound and determined economic policies and a prospect of real returns, including over the medium-term.

    There is another ingredient they will be looking for too, namely political and economic stability. We strongly support your present efforts to establish these. For, in the end, trade and investment will only flourish against a stable political background. This is a lesson that we too have had to learn in Europe, at the cost of much blood and treasure. So today, the European Union not only provides a market of some 400 million people, it has also made armed conflict between its members unthinkable.

    But I do not want to talk only of the trading links between us. Britain is also active in helping Pakistan’s people realise their potential. Our aid programme, the third largest of our programmes, focuses on Pakistan’s greatest resource, the wealth of talent of its people.

    We support the provision of better basic health care and primary education. And we particularly applaud Pakistan’s continuing important commitment to your Social Action Programme. British experts and volunteers are working with their Pakistani counterparts across the country, in the North West Frontier, in Buluchistan, in Punjab, in rural Sindh – almost anywhere there is work to be done.

    British non-governmental organisations are of course also very active here, and I am delighted that the British Foreign Office Minister for Overseas Development, Lynda Chalker, plans to visit here in March.

    Underpinning all these other ties, of course, are the remarkable personal links between Pakistanis here and British Pakistanis. Today, there are over 600,000 British Pakistanis in the UK. Nearly one of every hundred people in the UK is of Pakistani origin.

    The Pakistani community in the UK is, and long has been, an integral part of our multi-ethnic society. Last year, almost 55 per cent of British Pakistanis were horn in Britain. They are committed to education. The proportion of British Pakistanis in further education rises every year. And they are active in business and politics; there are now more than 120 British Pakistani councillors in UK local government. Both as individuals, and as a community, Pakistanis in Britain are making an important and distinctive contribution to our national life.

    Britain has a tangible and enduring commitment to Pakistan. What better time to celebrate it than in your Jubilee Year, 1997? The visit of Her Majesty the Queen in the Autumn will be the high point. But many other visits are planned:

    – on the military side, the new Chief of Britain’s Defence Staff, and the First Sea Lord, will be here;
    – a team of British Law Lords visited last week for talks with the Pakistani Chief Justice;
    – the Lord Mayor of London will be here in March on board The Royal Yacht Britannia, supporting a significant programme of commercial activity;
    – and I hope that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of the Church of England, will visit at the end of the year, to meet both the Christian community and Muslim leaders too.

    Meanwhile, the British Council in Pakistan have arranged their largest ever festival here. It will offer the Royal Shakespeare Company in April; a programme of contemporary dance next month; piano recitals, sculpture exhibitions, and photographic exhibitions. An exhibition which charts the influences and links between Islam and the West. And something close to all of our hearts, and exhibition devoted to cricket.

    While acknowledging the past, for me the real importance of 1997 is the chance it gives us to look to the future. One way we have decided to mark the 50th anniversary is by establishing in Karachi a British Management Training Resource Centre, as a means of making a practical contribution to Pakistan’s continued development as a prosperous and efficient state.

    So there is much to look forward to. The friendship between the United Kingdom and Pakistan has proved itself repeatedly over the last 50 years. And so long as I, at least, have anything to do with it – which I trust will be a good few years yet – you will continue to find us firm friends in the future. We may not always be the most flamboyant of partners. But we do make a practice of delivering on our commitments.

    If my experience is anything to go by, your immediate political priorities will continue rather to preoccupy you until next month. But thereafter, you and the people of Pakistan will retain an immense stake in your country’s future success and prosperity. That, Prime Minister, is an investment that we share. And we look for it to thrive.

  • 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 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.