Author: admin

  • PMQT – 25 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th May 1993. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Mandelson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the unveiling of a memorial statue to Field Marshal Viscount Alanbrooke by Her Majesty the Queen, as is, I understand, the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.

    Mr. Mandelson : Given that a system of charging for hospital beds would be a tax under which the longer one was ill the more one would have to pay, and given that it would destroy at a stroke the principle of a national health service free at the time of need and point of use, will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance today that the Government will never force NHS patients to pay charges for NHS beds?

    Mr. Newton : I can best point the hon. Gentleman to what was said in our manifesto : that need, not ability to pay, is and will remain the basis on which care is offered to all in the NHS. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Ministers said in an interview in one of this morning’s newspapers, we shall honour our pledges both in the spirit and the letter.

    Madam Speaker : Mr. Patrick Nicholls.

    Mr. Newton : While I am at it, may I just say– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I apologise. I had not appreciated that the Leader of the House had not completed his reply.

    Mr. Newton : That is entirely understandable, Madam Speaker. I simply wanted to add that it was good to see the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) back from his triumph in masterminding the loss of Labour’s deposit in Newbury.

     

    Q2. Mr. Nicholls : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Nicholls : Now that the Maastricht Bill has received its Third Reading, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity, and indeed every opportunity, to tell the people of Britain that the Maastricht treaty is a move away from federalism, not a move towards it? It is the Liberal and Labour parties which are self-confessedly federalist and the Conservative party which is not. Is not this a treaty which gives us the opportunity to co-operate with other nation states, to the benefit of this country, which has always been the policy of the Conservative party?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. By enshrining subsidiarity and co-operation between states, the Maastricht treaty will move us to a much less centralised Europe. That is a major achievement and a great gain from the British point of view. As for the Labour party, it has, to my recollection, had seven different policies on Europe in the time that I have been in the House and the Opposition appeared to be changing their minds again even last week.

    Mrs. Beckett : The Lord President quoted the Prime Minister on the manifesto pledges of the Conservative party. Does he recall the pledge not to increase national insurance contributions–broken? Does he recall the pledge to maintain mortgage interest relief–broken? How does he square all that with what the Prime Minister said yesterday?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend made the position absolutely clear in his answer last week, in setting out the Government’s intentions to review public expenditure against the background of the pledges that we have made and the need to protect the most vulnerable. If the right hon. Lady disagrees with that, perhaps she would care to tell us whether she is disowning, in his absence, her right hon. and learned Friend’s statement that we should be prepared to re-examine everything and that he has not ruled anything out.

    Mrs. Beckett : The Leader of the House and his party kept talking about taking tough decisions. When will the Government take the tough decision to admit even the smallest share of the blame for the state to which this country has been reduced–never mind the price the Government are asking the British people to pay?

    Mr. Newton : When it comes to talking about the price that the British people must pay, the hon. Lady must count as some kind of expert. I have been looking back at something said by her hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) some time ago :

    “I will not take lessons in Left wing unity from Margaret Beckett. She was the person who went into the 1976 Labour government to implement the cuts over which I had resigned.”

    [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats.

    Mrs. Beckett : The Lord President knows full well that the Government went into the general election campaign promising tax cuts and public expenditure increases. Is not the most fundamental problem that Britain faces today the fact that it has a Government whose dishonesty is exceeded only by their incompetence?

    Mr. Newton : What I know is that the Government are approaching their difficult task in a responsible and considered way and that they are not going to get into the position that led the right hon. Lady into the problem that I have just quoted–the IMF coming here telling the Government what to do.

    Mr. Butterfill : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government’s priorities in the European Community will, in the foreseeable future, be to secure the entry to the Community of our former partners in the European Free Trade Association, notably the Scandinavian countries and Austria, and to facilitate the arrangements that the Community makes with the countries of eastern and central Europe?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have a number of important tasks in the Community, including carrying forward the concept of subsidiarity. Among the most important tasks and among those on which we have made the most gains in recent months is that of enlargement, to embrace exactly the countries to which my hon. Friend refers.

    Mr. Ashdown : Can the right hon. Gentleman categorically assure the House that no Government agency was involved in any way in coaching witnesses from Walter Somers before they appeared before the Select Committee looking into the Iraqi gun affair?

    Mr. Newton : The right hon. Gentleman well knows that all these matters are the subject of an inquiry by Lord Justice Scott. The most appropriate course for Ministers and other hon. Members is to allow that inquiry to conduct its proceedings properly.

    Mr. Duncan Smith : Does my right hon. Friend agree that last week’s Audit Commission report on the chronic mismanagement, waste and incompetence of Lambeth council painted a grim picture of Labour in control of councils? Does he further agree that it is a bit rich when the deputy Leader of the Opposition talks about the Government displaying incompetence and dishonesty when Labour has a record like that?

    Mr. Newton : I was indeed pretty horrified to hear details of that Audit Commission report on Lambeth council, although not entirely surprised in view of its socialist record of incompetence and waste, which is well known on both sides of the House. It reminded me, once again, of that immortal quote from Tribune last May :

    “Ineffectual or rotten Labour councils have been a feature of political life for as long as anyone can remember.”

     

    Q3. Mr. Gordon Prentice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Prentice : Is the Lord President aware that the first passenger train that ran in England between Liverpool and Manchester achieved a top speed of 29 mph? That was in 1829. Is not it disgraceful that 164 years ago a train could achieve a higher speed than the train currently running between Nelson and Colne in my constituency? Is the Lord President further aware that I have a letter from the chairman of British Rail which says that the 20 mph speed restriction will be permanent because of cuts in Government funding?

    Mr. Newton : Somewhat to my surprise–I had not anticipated that the hon. Gentleman would seek to be so helpful–that seems to be the best argument I have heard for some time for the rapid passage of the Railways Bill, which is before the House today.

     

    Q4. Mr. Fabricant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 May.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Fabricant : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that subsidiarity can be applied retrospectively as well as prospectively and that that means that any European legislation which has been laid before the House and which we have had to rubber stamp since 1986 can–if it meets the subsidiarity test–be either amended or swept aside?

    Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend is right. The Commission is reviewing existing European Community law. At the Edinburgh Council it presented some 32 examples of legislation which should be either withdrawn, amended or re- examined, or further proposals that should not be pursued. That review is continuing and a full report is scheduled for the European Council in December this year. It is our intention that those items to which subsidiarity applies should be amended or repealed.

    Mr. Sheldon : In regard to the Government’s intention to reduce the budget deficit, we have heard from Minister after Minister that nothing is ruled out, yet we have heard nothing about increasing the higher rate of tax. Should not that be ruled in?

    Mr. Newton : It is not only from Ministers that we have heard that. As I reminded the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), that is what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, too. That is the sensible way in which to approach these matters and that is the way in which the Government are approaching them.

     

    Overseas Aid

    Q5. Mr. Luff : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s policy on the relative importance of trade and aid in assisting the economic development of the poorest nations.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    Worldwide trade liberalisation and measures to encourage the private sector are critical for developing countries, but many countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, will continue to need concessional finance for the foreseeable future. Further debt reduction along the lines of the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in Trinidad in 1990 will also be required for the poorest, most heavily indebted countries.

    Mr. Luff : I thank my right hon. Friend warmly for what he has just said. Does he agree that the major objective of our aid policy should be to encourage the promotion of private sector enterprises in the developing world? In that context, will he pay tribute to the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation? Does he further agree that we have a fine record as a Government for fighting for free trade, which brings advantages to the developed and the developing world? Can he give an assurance that that fine record will be enhanced at the G7 summit in Tokyo in July this year?

    Mr. Newton : Certainly I acknowledge, as I think the whole House would, the leading role that my right hon. Friend and other colleagues have played in advancing the cause of free trade and the successful outcome to the GATT round. My hon. Friend is also right about the part played by the Commonwealth Development Corporation which is the main instrument in our aid programme for the direct promotion of private investment in developing countries. As it happens, United Kingdom direct private investment in developing countries was estimated to be some £3 billion in 1991. That is half the overall total for the whole European Community. It is a record of which we can be proud.

    Mr. Worthington : If the Minister is in favour of free trade, when will we abandon the practice of demanding that developing countries drop their import tariffs and when will we stop dumping subsidised CAP food on them?

    Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have always taken the view that trade is as important as aid in advancing the circumstances of developing countries. I think he will agree that we have a better record than many in promoting those objectives.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if civil service (a) terms and conditions and (b) codes of conduct apply to special advisers attached to Ministers in Government.

    The Prime Minister : Special advisers have generally the same conditions of service as other civil servants, except that their salaries are negotiated individually in relation to previous earnings and are confidential. Different arrangements apply to severance pay. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers’ salary spine of 30 points.

    Special advisers are subject to the same rules of conduct as other civil servants, with the exception of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments after resignation or retirement and certain aspects of the rules on political activities.

     

    European Parliament (Elections)

    Mr. Wigley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s policy regarding the de Gucht report on elections to the European Parliament.

    The Prime Minister : We are ready to discuss the issue in Council when the presidency decides to table the report. If the council were to reach a consensus, which remains to be seen, it would certainly need to respect different national traditions. We acknowledge the attempt made by the de Gucht report to take these considerations into account.

     

    Nuclear Test Veterans

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister if he will sympathetically consider any request to meet representatives of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Studies so far have shown that the incidence of death and malignant disease has been no greater among British nuclear test veterans than among the general population. If, however, the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association has any new evidence to change the position, I should be pleased to examine it and will readily consider any subsequent request for a meeting in that light.

     

    British Coal Superannuation Scheme

    Mr. Tipping : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the correspondence he has received about the British Coal staff superannuation scheme.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a substantial number of representations on a wide range of coal issues.

     

    Crossrail

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all those organisations and companies, other than the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance, from which he has received recent representations concerning the crossrail project.

    The Prime Minister : I have received representations in recent weeks from the following organisations and companies :

    Aylesbury Vale District Council

    Buckinghamshire County Council

    Grosvenor Estates

    London Chambers Network

    London First

    MEPC plc

    Residents’ Association of Mayfair

    Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce and Industry

    The Corporation of the City of London

     

    Yugoslavia

    Mr. Elletson : To ask the Prime Minister what is the total cost of Britain’s contribution to the peace process in the former Yugoslavia.

    The Prime Minister : The costs cannot be precisely calculated but are considerable in the military, political and humanitarian fields. Up to 31 March 1993, the United Kingdom’s contribution to UNPROFOR operations in Croatia and Bosnia has amounted to £93,835,679. Further expenditure of £2,576,831 has been incurred as a result of the airlift of humanitarian supplies to Sarajevo. We expect to recover a proportion of these costs from the United Nations in due course.

     

    EC Additionality

    Mr. McMaster : To ask the Prime Minister when he last met representatives of the European Commission to discuss the application of the additionality principle by (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other member states; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I last discussed additionality with the Commission and other EC Heads of State and Government at the European Council in Edinburgh. We agreed that the basic principles laid down in 1988 – concentration, programming, partnership and additionality–should continue to guide the implementation of the structural funds. Financial control more generally will be strengthened and greater emphasis will be given to appraisal, monitoring and evaluation. The current review of the structural funds regulations is examining the Commission’s proposal on additionality.

     

    European Court of Human Rights

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he intends to bring to the Council of Europe Heads of State summit in October with regard to the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, at its meeting at Strasbourg on 14 May, instructed that work should proceed urgently on the mandate for a draft protocol amending the European convention on human rights, to be submitted to Heads of State and Government at the Council of Europe summit in October. The United Kingdom will contribute fully to this work.

    The purpose of the draft protocol will be to reform the control machinery of the convention, in order to accommodate the growing workload of the European Court and Commission of Human Rights and to ensure that cases are heard in good time. All member states are agreed that such reform is urgently needed.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr. Alan Clark

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister if Mr. Alan Clark was telephone tapped during his period in office as a Minister of the Crown.

    The Prime Minister : The policy on the interception of the telephones of Members of Parliament remains as stated in 1966 by the then Prime Minister, the Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and as applied by successive Governments since. In answer to questions on 17 November 1966, Lord Wilson said that he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament and that, if there were a development which required such a change of policy, he would at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on his own initiative make a statement in the House about it. As I said in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 29 June 1992 at column 375, the Government regard this undertaking as still applying to both postal and telephone interception.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Government Priorities

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what priorities have been set for Her Majesty’s Government between now and the beginning of the summer adjournment.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 14 January 1993 at columns 786-87.

     

    Policy Objectives, London

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what are Her Majesty’s Government’s short-term, medium-term and long-term policy objectives for London.

    The Prime Minister : Our policy objectives are to maintain and enhance London’s position as a thriving national capital and a leading world city.

     

    Council of Ministers (Votes)

    Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister what advice has been given to all Departments concerning the recording of answers to be published in the Official Report to parliamentary questions of all votes in meetings of the EC’s Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : All Departments are being advised that statements to the House following meetings of the Council of Ministers should include details of the vote, whenever a formal vote is taken in Council, or should record that no formal votes were taken.

     

    Correspondence (Journalists)

    Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister what guidelines he has issued governing official correspondence between civil servants and journalists; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : None. Guidance on various points concerning relations between civil servants and journalists is given in “A Working Guide for Government Information Officers” produced by the information officer management unit in the Office of Public Service and Science, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Congdon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

  • PMQT – 20 May 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Bennett : Does the Prime Minister recall his big idea of the citizen’s charter, aimed at giving individuals swift redress? Can he explain why veterans of the atomic tests which took place on Christmas island and elsewhere over 30 years ago, who suffered the horrendous effects of radiation, have still not received compensation? People in the United States who suffered in a similar way have been compensated. The Prime Minister assured the House as long ago as 4 December 1990, in reply to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), that the matter was to receive his urgent attention.

    The Prime Minister : Yes. About 10 days ago I wrote again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and other hon. Members who expressed an interest in the matter. We are still waiting for medical reports on which we can make our judgments. I have sought to have the medical reports expedited, but there is further examination to be done. As soon as these medical reports are received we can reach a decision.

     

    Q2. Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Sir Peter Tapsell : Following his statement yesterday, can my right hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to earlier interpretations of the Maastricht treaty and its protocols, he is now advised that the opt out from monetary union extends to the exchange rate mechanism and that Britain has no obligation, under the terms of the treaty, to re-enter the exchange rate mechanism unless and until we decide to seek to enter a single European currency?

    The Prime Minister : Yes. In essence my hon. Friend is quite right. I have had no fresh advice, but that has always been the position. Nothing in the Maastricht treaty obliges us to rejoin the exchange rate mechanism. What the treaty does is make it explicitly clear that we retain responsibility for monetary policy in stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union as long as we do not participate in a single monetary policy. As my hon. Friend knows, because of the opt out that I negotiated at Maastricht, we would not enter into a single currency until and unless the House had specifically approved it.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister give the House a guarantee that the Government will not make millions of pensioners and children pay for prescriptions?

    The Prime Minister : I had optimistically thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might welcome a third successive fall in unemployment, but I should perhaps have known him better. May I explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman–so that there is no doubt either to him or millions of people throughout the country–exactly the review that is taking place on public expenditure? My answer to every scare story that the right hon. and learned Gentleman produces will be the same–I hear that he was peddling them earlier today. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been instructed to examine all our public expenditure to ensure that it is well targeted and that it delivers value for money, and to see where savings in taxpayers’ money can be found. However, he knows that in doing so he must protect the position of the most vulnerable members of society, and that is what he is doing. At the moment, my right hon. Friend is being presented with options. He has not yet considered the options or selected those worth further consideration.

    No decisions have been made, and no decision is imminent. Decisions will not be made until the public expenditure round in the autumn. Many options will need to be discarded, but we need to examine public expenditure, and we shall both maintain our manifesto commitments and protect the most vulnerable people in society. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now give up his tedious weekly shroud waving.

    Mr. John Smith : I should have known better than to expect a straight answer from the Prime Minister. No one in the country will know whether his answer means yes or no. The Prime Minister talks about his manifesto commitments; may I remind him that millions of ordinary families are already deeply worried about having to pay another £8.50 per week next year and even more the year after, despite his tax pledges. Now families face the threat of an additional tax on being ill. Why are the Government so intent on making ordinary families in this country pay the price of their economic incompetence?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should not peddle those scare stories and frighten people. I have made it absolutely clear that we shall protect vulnerable members of society. “We should be prepared to re-examine everything ; I have not ruled anything out”– [Interruption.] Those are not my words but those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was speaking about his review of social policy.

    Mr. John Smith : Just over a year ago the Prime Minister promised lower taxes and no cuts in public expenditure. We know that he has broken one promise already, and clearly he is planning to break another. Is it any wonder that no one any longer believes anything that he says?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman should stop trying to frighten vulnerable people for his own party advantage. I say to him in all friendliness that it will do him no good in the end. We shall honour our manifesto commitments. Since the general election the right hon. and learned Gentleman has publicly junked all his manifesto commitments. The contrast is obvious, and the public will know which party keeps its promises, for its members sit here, and which party seeks week after week to frighten people with scare stories, for its members sit over there.

     

    Q3. Mr. Kynoch : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Kynoch : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures show a further fall this month, for the third month in a row? Does he agree that that is a further welcome sign that the recovery is starting to work through to where we all want to see it, in the job-centres and in a meaningful and stable reduction in unemployment?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, that is welcome to everyone. There are those who mention unemployment when it is going down as well as when it is going up. Unemployment is still too high, but today’s figures offer further hope for unemployed people. Not only has unemployment now fallen for the third month in a row, but the number of people employed in manufacturing industry has risen for the third consecutive month, and the number of new vacancies notified to job-centres is more than it was a year ago. If the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) wishes to continue with his smears, perhaps he will put up or shut up.

    Mr. Foulkes : Following the Tory party conference in Scotland, is the Prime Minister aware of the extent of opposition to water privatisation in Scotland, even among Conservatives? Will he now end the uncertainty and give a clear and unequivocal pledge that there will be no privatisation of water in Scotland?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman has made the point that he wished to make, and he knows as well as I do that the options are set out in the consultation paper “Investing for the Future”. We are considering those options. When we have finished our considerations, we shall announce the result.

     

    Q4. Mr. Clifton-Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Clifton-Brown : Will my right hon. Friend confirm his view, stated during the last election, that first-past-the-post is the best electoral system ; one which has served us well for centuries? Is it not typical of Opposition Members to want to introduce a proportional representation system–a desire reinforced by their decision to abstain on the historically important European vote this evening?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm that I remain in favour of the first-past-the-post system. I am against proportional representation, and I do not need a referendum to tell me what my view on the matter should be.

     

    Q5. Sir David Steel : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Sir David Steel : Has the Prime Minister been able to examine the workings of the community care schemes since they came into operation on 1 April? Is the confusion and anxiety as great in Huntington as it is elsewhere? Will he promise a full review of the schemes at the end of the first three months of working?

    The Prime Minister : The scheme is, with the consent of hon. Members in all parts of the House and people throughout the community care system, a great advance. People have wanted care in the community for a long time, and they now have it. It is a very substantial change. We shall, of course, keep the matter under review to make sure that it is working satisfactorily. There are bound to be some difficulties at the beginning of a change on this scale. It is a welcome change, one for which we have looked for many years, and we intend it to be a success.

     

    Q6. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Greenway : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing suffocation of London by heavy traffic, which is now damaging job prospects in the capital? Will he accept the congratulations of my constituents in Ealing and of the whole of London on his determination to go ahead with the crossrail project? Will the Government do everything possible to expedite the passage of the enabling measure through the House? May we have an assurance that the construction of the project, which will bring jobs to all parts of London, including Ealing, will start yesterday, if possible?

    The Prime Minister : That might be rather difficult. Crossrail is important for London and for jobs throughout the country, and I know that it will be particularly welcome to hon. Members with London constituencies. It will be a joint venture with the private sector and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill will take place in the House next month. Crossrail will obviously make a dramatic difference to London’s transport system, as will the Jubilee line extension, to which the Government are also committed– [Interruption.] –as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is heckling, may wish to know.

    Mrs. Bridget Prentice : The Prime Minister may recall that I wrote to him on 30 March about assisted area status for London. I have since received a holding reply. He will know that if London were to receive assisted area status, the support of the Government would be needed and that 13 London boroughs, including Lewisham, would be affected. When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give me a positive reply?

    The Prime Minister : I very much hope that we will be able to reach a decision on changes to the assisted areas map before too long. We are well advanced with our examination of it and are looking at the various criteria that need to be considered. I would certainly hope that we would have a decision, and announce it, well before the House rises for the summer.

     

    Q7. Mr. Nicholas Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

    Mr. Winterton : I warmly welcome the reduction in unemployment for the third consecutive month, for which Government policies are in part responsible. Will my right hon. Friend give me, the House and the people of this country an assurance that he will not undermine the recovery in our economy by re-entering the exchange rate mechanism? In addition, will he give the pensioners and children of this country an assurance that he will not permit prescriptions to be paid for by the retired or by the young?

    The Prime Minister : I warmly welcome part of my hon. Friend’s question : I share his pleasure at the fall in unemployment. We now have the right conditions which I hope will lead to a consistent fall in unemployment. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who are saying that the figures are a fiddle may be interested to know that the Department’s director of statistics, a civil servant, today issued a statement which said :

    “I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the claimant count figures.”

    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) may sit there giggling and making accusations, but he ought not to attack public officials who are not in a position to answer back. My hon. Friend will have heard me say earlier this week that we had no imminent intention of returning to the exchange rate mechanism because the circumstances for doing so were by no means appropriate at present. As for his second question, he clearly heard the detailed statement that I made to the House some moments ago.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Maastricht Treaty (III) – 19 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Maastricht Treaty, made during an interview held on 19th May 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the Maastricht Treaty would progress quickly following the Danish referendum result].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am certainly pleased the Danes have cleared that uncertainty up, it has been a very debilitating, very difficult period both in Denmark, right across the Community, and certainly in the United Kingdom as well. We have the third reading of the bill in the Commons on Thursday, I hope and expect it will be passed then. The bill will then move to the House of Lords and thereafter we will be able to have Royal Assent and ratify the bill.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he could get the bill through Parliament given the divisions in the Conservative Party and whether he would agree to the social chapter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a very decisive issue, Europe, it has been a very divisive issue in this country ever since we first joined it, and that remains the case. To take the particular points you raised, the social chapter firstly. I was speaking last night to a large number of employers at the CBI, they are absolutely clear that without the social chapter we are in a much better position. People think the social chapter offers all sorts of social benefits. I think it really more aptly ought to be called an employment destructive chapter, and that is emphatically not what we want in the United Kingdom, I want to put people back to work, not raise impediments to them getting work, and I believe that is what the social chapter would do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Edward Heath supporting the social chapter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ted is a very enthusiastic supporter of European development, I do not believe the social chapter is in our interests, I do believe it is very much in the British interest, in the British national interest, our own cold, hard self-interest to be right at the centre of the European Community. And I do not just say that for idealistic reasons. The European Community is where our exports go to, it is where most of our jobs over the last 10 years effectively were created from, because of our growth in trade where was a huge growth of small businesses and firms. We need that growth in trade, we need those jobs. I know of no-one, no-one, who has a practical alternative to Britain being at the centre of Europe using her influence. There are only three alternatives really: leave the European Community, hardly anyone is proposing that; stay in it without influence and be dragged along by the French and Germans, that is not attractive; or get in the middle of the Community, form alliances with our partners, different alliances on different issues, and try and wield real British influence in the European Community, and that is where I stand.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there would be increasing pressure on Britain to rejoin the ERM and join the social chapter and whether he would fight or give in].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think it is quite as straightforward as that either way. For every member of the Community, throughout the lifetime of the Community, there have been pressures. When you have 12 nations, soon to be 16, working together always there are going to be pressures and difficulties. In order to win your way in the Community you need alliances, you need to be taken seriously, you certainly do not want to be sidelined with the rest of the Community ganging up on you, as has happened so often to this country in the past.

    What we are seeing at the moment is a fairly dramatic move towards the sort of European Community that we in Britain have always wanted and feel comfortable with, a wider Community, because of the agreements at Edinburgh the EFTAN nations will soon be joining. They will firstly be net contributors to the budget, which will save us money, and secondly they will be free traders. We have different governments across Europe, more inclined to the British point of view. We are at the moment in a better position than we have been, I believe, at any stage in our membership to start influencing the Community to go in the direction that we the British would like to see it moving.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Maastricht Treaty (II) – 19 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Maastricht Treaty, made during an interview held on 19th May 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the divisions in the Conservative Party over Europe].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a very serious difference of view in the Conservative Party over Europe. There is absolutely no doubt about that, but I understand why that should be. This is a gut issue for the Tory Party; it runs very deep amongst people; they take a view very sharply one side or very sharply the other. They are operating from conviction. I can’t stop people operating from conviction in politics nor indeed would I wish to do so, but I think we have to proceed with the Bill. When we have concluded it, there is life after Maastricht, we will return to the other issues.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he could do about backbenchers who knew they wouldn’t be promoted so may as well rebel].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We’ve had rebellions before and I dare say from time to time we’ll have rebellions again, but one thing I’ve learned even in the two-and-a-half years I’ve been Prime Minister is that the people who are rebelling against a particular policy one week may well be your strongest supporter on another issue a week or so later. I think people are clearly distressed. I would much rather we hadn’t had this great disagreement in the Conservative Party but we have a disagreement of people with convictions that differ but we will get through that. We will conclude the Bill and then we will turn on to other issues where those disagreements won’t arise.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Britain would rejoin the ERM].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that is imminent, no, for reasons we have set out in the past. I think we would need the economies to be much closer together than they are at the moment. Some of the major economies in Europe are at present going in different directions. That is not a Clementine to rejoin the Exchange Rate Mechanism so I don’t think that is imminent. It will be some while before we consider it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked that if the ERM was a pre-cursor to a single currency, whether it would be necessary for Britain to join again].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, well you say that of course when you are referring to the movement towards Economic and Monetary Union, but I think the changes that we have seen in European economies over the last two years rather bear out the reservations that I expressed at Maastricht, before Maastricht and subsequent to Maastricht. In order for Economic and Monetary Union, a single currency, to work you would need convergence of the European economies; they would need to come together. I know of no-one who thinks they have come together in recent years, quite the reverse in fact; they have moved further apart. Although the time-scale may lay on the table for Economic and Monetary Union, I very much doubt that it is realistic.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Maastricht Treaty (I) – 19 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Maastricht Treaty, made during an interview held on 19th May 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Danish referendum result now meant that the Maastricht Treaty could be finalised].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I’m delighted the Danes have got an affirmative answer in their referendum but we still have to complete our parliamentary process. I don’t take that for granted. We have a third reading in the Commons, I think that will be quite satisfactory. We then have to put the bill through the House of Lords, I hope it’s back on track but no-one ever takes Parliament for granted.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the European Union would slow down its pace now].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I’ve been saying for a long time, indeed I said when we had the original Maastricht negotiations, that I thought the idea of the speed that they wanted to move towards economic and monetary union was just unrealistic. I didn’t like the principle, I thought it was unrealistic then, I believe events have proved that, it is now unrealistic.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Chancellor Kohl wanting to move towards European integration whilst he wanted a slower rate of change].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, that is my view, it’s not a new view, it’s a view I’ve expressed right from the moment of the Maastricht negotiations. Even if one assumed that a single currency was right for Europe, and I have never made that assumption, but even if that assumption were true it is not the case that the European economies have converged in the last few years making that possible. If anything they have diverged and the prospects of moving rapidly towards European monetary union seem to me to have drifted away very substantially.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if some countries would achieve a single currency by the end of the decade without the UK].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is unlikely, I think it’s unlikely. You can’t categorically rule it out but I do believe it’s unlikely because it could the nature of the Community and I don’t think that would be in their interests or anyone elses.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if Britain would rejoin the ERM].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s not an immediate prospect.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was now permanent division in the Conservative Party over Europe].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I don’t believe that is the case. There are a minority in our party, a significant number of colleagues, who feel passionately about European policy. That’s always been the case. Maastricht has heightened that passion quite noticeably over the last two years, I respect their convictions even though I don’t agree with them, but the majority of my party equally have strong convictions that are different to theirs. I believe, on the whole range of different matters, the need to bring down public expenditure, the need to ensure that manufacturing recovers, that industry recovers, the need to devolve choice from government and local governments down to the individual. On all these issues and a range of others the Conservative Party are united and they will remain united on those issues.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 19 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 19th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Biodiversity

    Ms Short : To ask the Prime Minister which Government Departments have been and continue to be involved in discussions over the negotiation, ratification and implementation of the convention on biological diversity.

    The Prime Minister : The Government Departments mainly involved include the Department of the Environment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office–including the Overseas Development Administration–Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Northern Ireland Office, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Law Officers’ Department, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Decisions on these matters are taken collectively.

     

    Economic Recovery

    Mr. Austin Mitchell : To ask the Prime Minister from what month or quarter he estimates the economic recovery began; and if he will set out the evidence from output and trade statistics underlying his estimate.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 17 May 1993] : It is always difficult to pinpoint economic turning points accurately until some time after they have occurred. But total output has been rising since last summer, and there have been encouraging signs–in figures for gross domestic product, manufacturing output, retail sales and exports–that recovery is under way across a broad front.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the CBI Annual Dinner – 18 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Conference in London, held on Tuesday 18th May 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen. Before I turn in a few moments to other matters, I would just like to say a word or two about the referendum today in Denmark. Although counting is still going on, it is now clear that there is a very large majority in favouring the Maastricht Treaty. Seven out of the eight political parties were in favour, business opinion was in favour and the result of that is evident in the votes cast today.

    Before today’s result, a large question mark hung over the treaty. The Danes, initially less cautious than us, agreed to the treaty without the opt-outs that we negotiated. As you will recall, their electorate rejected that position and they needed to come back to their Community partners. We were always clear in this country that Maastricht needed the consent of all Twelve members, eleven would not do. At Edinburgh we helped Denmark secure new agreements, agreements similar to those we had obtained in the original negotiation. Today, in the referendum, this new position has been overwhelmingly approved.

    Across Europe nine nations have now ratified. Denmark and Germany can be expected to do so shortly. Only in Britain where our process has been a little protracted is substantive approval for ratification still being sought.

    Mr President, business has warned government often enough of the danger that we in Britain could sideline ourselves from Europe. And away from the sound and fury of Westminster, away from the interminable, incomprehensible procedural wrangles over the Maastricht Treaty, away from all that the issue is stark and simple, the issue is British jobs, British sales, Britain’s future.

    So we will be moving on with our parliamentary process as soon as possible. I hope we will obtain approval in the Commons at third reading on Thursday of this week. We need now to put the Parliamentary wrangles behind us and get on with doing business for Britain in Europe, developing our sort of Europe, an open Europe, a wider Europe, a Europe that liberates the talents of its businesses and its peoples, emphatically, Mr President, not a federal Europe.

    We want a competitive Community, that is why we objected to the Social Chapter, it is why we opted out of it, Maastricht without the Social Chapter, influence without handicap. Mr President, business knows that that is what this country needs, I hope, Mr President, that business will speak out and say that that is what this country needs. And the sooner we put this debilitating period behind us, the better it will be for British business and for British prosperity.

    Mr President, success, business success, your success, that is the theme that I want to concentrate on this evening, that theme and the new partnership that is emerging between government and industry. It is private enterprise that creates wealth, government’s job is to help you get the orders, not to give you the orders. We must create the climate for business to flourish, low inflation, low interest rates, low tax rates.

    In the late 1980s the economy was allowed to overheat and the government then had to cool things down. And that is the best response when there has been a mistake, to correct it and then to make sure that it never happens again. Three years ago inflation was in double figures and rising, that would have halved the value of money in just seven years. Mr President, it had to be tackled. If inflation runs on unchecked, ruin is certain. If inflation is confronted and beaten, prosperity can then be re-built.

    So that hard grind of recession had to be endured. I know that it was painful, I know that recession has left its scars. Too many businesses had to close down altogether and many others shed many jobs. We have all learned the hard lessons of those years and we must never let inflation drive Britain off its course again.

    As we speak this evening, retail price inflation is now under 2 percent, interest rates are down to 6 percent, the process of recovery has begun. We now know that recovery began slowly, cautiously, in a timid fashion perhaps in the course of last year. And now the ripples are widening through industry and along the High Street. House building and car sales are up. Your own surveys show a new level of confidence and after today’s independent poll, dare I say it, confidence is galloping.

    Now that is cause for cheer but it is not cause for complacency. Tonight we need to look to the future. So be in no doubt, I am in no doubt whatsoever, it is going to be a highly competitive decade. The economy has been picking up here in the United Kingdom but in much of continental Europe it is slowing down, trading is tough, the horizon is crowded with new challenges, new competitors, new markets, new technology.

    If we are going to look competition in the eye, we need to look at ourselves in the mirror. Our objectives must be clear. We need to broaden our recovery, widen our manufacturing base, build on our strength and remedy our weaknesses.

    So I want to pick up a theme expounded at your last CBI Conference, the theme of competitiveness. First, manufacturing matters. I want to congratulate you, Mr President, on setting up the National Manufacturing Council, a very welcome initiative, a strong single voice for Britain’ s manufacturers, very welcome, I wish it had happened years ago.

    And let me say something else about manufacturing that I personally feel passionately. I do not believe we have any reason to be defeatist about manufacturing in Britain. In the 1980s productivity in British manufacturing rose faster than in the United States, faster than in any other major European economy, more than twice as fast as in West Germany. We have increased productivity over 7 percent in the last year and we have cut our costs as well and that is the key to success, keeping quality high and costs low. And those hard won productivity gains were especially valuable, they protected Britain’s manufacturing from the worst of the recession.

    But it is true, yes, our manufacturing output fell, but much less than in the previous recession, and indeed, to put it in context, much less than it has fallen in West Germany in just the past year. But let me give you an even longer perspective than that. Look back to 1981, the bottom of the previous European recession. Since then France has increased its manufacturing output by a creditable 7 percent. West Germany has done rather better – an increase of 13 percent. But Britain, Britain so often derided for its manufacturing performance, Britain has increased manufacturing output by over 24 percent.

    Mr President, they are outstanding figures. Of course we need to do better still, much better, but my point is simply this. In the 1980s we turned the tide, in the 1990s we can catch the flood and that must be the aim for all our manufacturing industries. I believe that we can do it. There is a new mood in British industry, a new culture, a new ambition stimulated by the transformation you went through in the 1980s, industry is not just leaner these days, it is keener, it is fitter, it is more prepared to go out and fight for its markets and keep its markets, it is less inclined just to look to a home base, it knows it has to fight around the world for the markets it needs.

    And you can illustrate that perhaps in a number of ways. Last autumn you illustrated it very vividly. Last autumn you turned the spotlight on yourselves, on your own performance, you applied a critical self-analysis to the competitiveness of British industry, asking the difficult questions, facing up to the quality of the competition. Those are the actions of the confident, not the cautious. You have assessed where British industry is ahead and where it is behind. It is for each company to determine what it must do to stay ahead or to catch up.

    We have world class companies in this country, world class companies making state of the art equipment, winning in the toughest of market places around the world – pharmaceuticals, aerospace, chemicals, biotechnology, power generation, the water industry, international construction – a very long list, Mr President, but not long enough. You create the world class companies but in a thousand ways the decisions that we take in government can help you or can hinder you, so we too, the government, we are part of Britain’s competitiveness.

    Let me say this about that. All our policies, not just our economic policy, need to be focused on the future strength of the British economy. I believe that industry and government are coming to a new understanding, a new partnership. Your leadership has represented your views very clearly and equally clearly we have responded.

    In March, against a difficult background for public finances, we still managed to cut industry’s tax bill by around 1 billion pounds, and that of course is on top of the help we gave industry in the autumn statement. But I believe that the government’s side of this partnership goes much wider than simply budget changes. We, government, we must bend our energies right across the whole field of government o the pursuit of enterprise and growth and prosperity, backing Britain’s exporters, making the single market work for us in the United Kingdom, fighting for free trade, rolling back excessive red tape, rolling up our sleeves together with industry to give this country the infrastructure it needs, getting better value for taxpayers’ money, raising standards across all our schools, putting training on the fast track and harnessing our scientific genius to industry’s needs. That is an agenda right across government so that harnessed together government and business can build a new prosperity for our nation.

    Mr. President, let me say just a little more about each of those goals and I will turn first, if I may, to that crucial question of trade. We are traders in this country. We live by trade. Exports make up a third of our national income. We know above all that we need to win in the world’s market-place. Our trade deficit is substantial. Imports have risen and the recovery has only just begun. Time after time in the past, expansion at home has brought a further surge in imports whilst business has turned its back on the export challenge. Mr. President, in all our interests, that of the country, that of the shareholders, that of the businessmen, that of the future, we simply must not let that happen again and it is partly because of our concern about that that the Chancellor increased export cover by 1,300 million pounds in the Autumn Statement and the Budget. It is why we have cut the cost of export cover. It is why in this country we have got to have the best export services in the world. You, business, generously lent Michael Heseltine some of your best people to sharpen up the Department of Trade & Industry’ s export work here at home. I am grateful for that and every overseas embassy must put you at the top of their priorities and I promise you this – every embassy around the world now knows they have to put British business at the top of their priorities.

    But Mr. President, where are our export markets? They are of course all around the world but our main export market is Europe or rather perhaps it is now our home market. We have heard all about Britain selling televisions to Germany and lace to Brussels but traditional French suits to Paris, pizzas to Italy? Why not? As the old song says: “Anything you can do we can do better!” and across this country those are the sort of exports that enterprising British manufacturers are now sending abroad.

    And, of course, those opportunities are vital for us. We recognised that right from the moment we joined the European Community. That is why, whatever the difficulties, whatever sometimes the extreme difficulties, we have fought for a competitive Europe, one in which every country in the community is forced to obey the rules right across the Community and that is also why we fought to keep those rules to a minimum. It was why I was so determined to keep Britain free of the Social Chapter. The Single Market is the opportunity of a business lifetime. I don’t intend to let Brussels spoil it for Britain because our prosperity depends upon taking those opportunities.

    Of course, Mr. President, some of our European competitors complain. They don’t want Britain to become a magnet for investment, a seed-bed for growth, a haven for jobs but the answer is simple – Europe as a whole needs to keep its costs down and sharpen its competitive edge.

    Mr. President, I spoke of free trade. The need for free trade doesn’t just apply in Europe’s Single Market – it applies throughout the world – and yet for seven long years governments have been promising to complete a crucial round of negotiations to liberalise world trade. Each year, pledges have been published, each year the deadline has been allowed to slip. Mr. President, that simply cannot go on! We are past the eleventh hour and the strains are showing. Europe and the United States have twice in the past year come close to a damaging exchange of hostile protectionism that could easily escalate into a full-blown trade war. Twice, good sense and good negotiation have prevailed but only just prevailed.

    I welcome without a shred of reservation President Clinton’s commitment to completing the Uruguay Round. I believe in Leon Brittan we have the best possible negotiator. I hope Japanese Government will engage fully in the effort to secure a breakthrough on tariffs at the Tokyo summit this summer.

    Let me speak quite bluntly and frankly about this position: the test of good intentions can no longer be delayed. We need progress, not words; agreement, not dissent; decisions, not delay; we need a conclusion to the Uruguay Round and we need it this year.

    Mr. President, we need it for a raft of reasons. We need it not least of course because our manufacturers’ markets are at stake. There are huge potential gains in the GATT Round for our service industries as well but that of course is the bright side; that is the side of getting an agreement.

    There is a dark side too, the dark side of no agreement, and on the dark side the threat to our industries from so-called “managed trade”, the threat to competition from back-room deals between governments, the protectionist threat to our freedom and prosperity. All can and must be resisted until we get that agreement.

    Mr. President, I spoke of the partnership between Government and business. Sometimes, the best service Government can do for industry is not to do something but to undo something. Take regulation or rather, perhaps better, take it away! Now there is an idea for a Government service – a takeaway service, deregulation by another name.

    How many times do you hear people say: “It shouldn’t be allowed! The Government ought to put a stop to it!“ and how many times when the public presses Government to respond is the final result another form to fill, another reel of red tape, another restriction on trade and enterprise? Mr. President, business and Government must join together to fight the bias against regulation.

    So we have changed policy sharply, clearly and distinctly. In future, every time Whitehall prepares a nice little parliamentary Bill, it is going to have to tell us what the bill will be for you, what it is going to cost business to comply with the new rules proposed. The rule for Government in future is a simple one: “No Bill without the true bill!” and that I believe will help us cut down on regulation.

    But that is weed control for the future. We need to go a good deal further than that. We need to uproot the weeds that are already there choking enterprise. Michael Heseltine’s task forces of industrialists under the leadership of John Sainsbury are digging away already. We plan to legislate in the next session of Parliament to cut red tape. That means that you, business, must act fast to tell us where regulation is putting you at a competitive disadvantage, where it is excessive, where good intentions have turned into bad results but if you need it changed, tell us now and if I may be blunt again, there is no point in coming to tell me after we have presented the parliamentary Bill. I need to know soon so that we can draft changes in the Bill and make the changes that business believes are necessary.

    Mr. President, there are other ways in which we are seeking to change the old habits of Government. You often press us. Every time I see you, you rush up with Howard and grip me warmly by the throat. You often press us for further investment in infrastructure. But then you also press us to restrain public spending and borrowing. I agree. You are right, on both counts.

    Government needs to subject its services to the same severe tests you face. It is essential to keep public expenditure under control. This summer we are vigorously assessing our spending priorities. Like you, we cannot afford waste. Like you, we are market-testing our activities. Like you – in this year’s unified Budget – we are separating our capital programmes from our current spending. Like you, we must constantly be looking to see where money can be saved – where more can be done for less. And where less should be done by Government – more by the individual and the private sector.

    So let me make this request of you. As we will support you in your drive for efficiency, so we will look for your support in ours. But we can do more than back each other up. We can work together. That’s why I do not believe that the provision of infrastructure has to be restricted to the public sector. Now is your chance – in partnership – to get the infrastructure that you, the private sector, feel is important.

    Consider our history! Many of the great infrastructure projects were designed, built and funded by entrepreneurs. It was the private sector that built our canals, that laid the foundations of our railway system. More recently, it was the private sector that built the new Dartford bridge on time, on budget and very well too. It is the private sector that is behind the Birmingham northern relief road, the first privately-funded major road this century.

    We want to see the private sector fully involved in London’s Cross-rail project. We are determined to make sure the project is carried out as cost-effectively as possible and let me confirm tonight for those who may have had doubts that London Transport’s parliamentary Bill is going ahead in Parliament next month.

    Some people say that private finance won’t make a noticeable difference to our capital programmes. The City say differently. The City say that there already is something in excess of a billion pounds worth of private money available to support Crossrail and as President Reagan once memorably said: “A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you’ re talking real money!”. The Chief Secretary says something similar from time to time! Almost every time I see him, as I recall!

    Mr. President, it isn’t just physical capital that is important. Human capital is vital too. Tomorrow’s school-leavers will not be up to the jobs you are creating if they cannot read, write, calculate or spell. Government in Britain spends a higher share of our national wealth on education than either Germany or Japan and yet a third of those going into further education still need remedial help with English to get through their courses. Forty percent need help with numbers. Poor basic skills in literacy and numeracy cost you, business almost £5 billion a year. That, frankly, is a handicap Britain cannot afford. Schools cannot be a no-go zone for accountability and they cannot be a no-go zone for testing either in the future we are building.

    We British are a common sense people. We know that tests in schools are a necessary preparation for the tests that we all face in life. Britain is tested day by day in every market around the world and I want to see British workers top of the league tables of the world and that means the right education from the very first day each and every one of our children goes to school. And beyond school as well, because I know and you know that we can only do that by training our workforce throughout their lives. Education never again will stop at the school gate on the day the pupil leaves.

    Again, we need to set the right framework for the future turning the tattered patchwork quilt of vocational qualifications into a proper banner of progress, getting the best training for the best jobs and that is what tests and training credits are intended to do but I recognise that Government’s training effort can only be a fraction of industry’s own effort. Good businesses invest in their people, train them, develop them and as a result of that, they keep them as valuable employees for a very long time.

    I would like to pay my own tribute to the CBI who played a key role in the “Investors in People” initiative and I know that many of you here this evening are among the 3,000 organisations working to meet its demanding standards, organisations that include the public sector right up to its core in Whitehall and I expect more and more to take on that particular challenge. With Brian Wolfson spearheading the drive, we are now on track to meet our target for this initiative and tonight I am delighted that Bass Taverns represented by Charles Derby this evening have become the 250th investor in people. I hope we will soon increase that number many times over.

    Mr. President, right across industry we need to turn best practice into common practice. The best help smaller arms to grow, nurture their suppliers, even pay their bills on time! They adopt partnership-sourcing. You can always tell how many small firms are in the audience! They work together to offer the best possible deal for their customers and the best possible future for British industry as a whole.

    Innovation isn’t just about technology or about science but it depends on them and our scientists today are every bit as worthy in their own particular fields as were their great predecessors like Faraday or Fleming. They can’t be trammelled to think the state decree like some intellectual short-order cook but within our science base there is a cornucopia of ideas, of invention, of ingenuity just waiting to strengthen Britain’s competitiveness. Our job as Government is to help bring the best ideas out of the laboratory and into industry and William Waldegrave who is here this evening will shortly publish a White Paper on science and technology and his aim in that White Paper is quite clear, to help maintain and improve scientific and engineering skills and then to engage them in the creation of this nation’s wealth.

    We want all those changes that I have set out this evening and others besides that time has not permitted me to mention for one overwhelming, over-riding reason: I want to see this country hungry for excellence and thirsty for achievement. Those aren’t slogans to be discarded as recovery fades the economy out of the daily news headlines; they are imperative for all our futures. We must have the confidence to compare and to compete and beat our competitors around the world and we won’t do that – we shouldn’t do it – by asking where our competitors are today or where we were yesterday. Let them ask that about us! We should ask where we want to be by the turn of the century and some of our aims are clear. We should lift our eyes beyond the immediate horizon of next week, next month, next year to look at what is going to happen during the rest of this hugely competitive decade.

    The search for high and rising productivity must be continuous. Firm control of costs is needed; a well-educated workforce ready for high-quality training is essential; an economic environment of low inflation and hence low interest rates; a wealth-creating economy, free from the burdens of over-regulation and high taxation.

    Mr. President, not one of our competitors is standing still, not one of our competitors will stand back for us. It is up to us, the people here in this room and your colleagues in business from one end of the country to the other, it is up to us, all of us in partnership, to help Britain get that step ahead and keep that step ahead and if we do it, if we can achieve it, if we can develop this new culture that you can sense happening in British industry and commerce day after day, then the prospects for our country, our future, this generation and the next are very bright indeed. We must set as our ambition to enter the new millennium at the forefront of achievement, a nation respected for what it contributes, admired for its standards and emulated for its practices. That must be the aim to which all of us must dedicate ourselves.

    Mr. President, today we are laying secure foundations for sustained recovery. Tomorrow, we must build on them as we face this hugely competitive future.