Author: admin

  • PMQT Written Answers – 29 April 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Gibraltar

    Q9. Sir Teddy Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the status of Gibraltar in the EC.

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

     

    Local Authority Powers, Scotland

    Mrs. Fyfe : To ask the Prime Minister

    (1) how many representations he has received proposing that some existing local authority powers be transferred away from Scottish local authorities to the Scottish Office;

    (2) how many representations he has received to establish joint boards or non-elected bodies in Scotland to take over functions from directly elected Scottish local authorities.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of representations on local government issues. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has received some comments, in response to his consultation exercise on local government reform in Scotland, which advocate either the transfer of particular local authority functions to central Government, or the establishment of joint boards, or both.

     

    Former Yugoslavia

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister how much food has been contributed by the United Kingdom to relieve humanitarian suffering in the former Yugoslavia; what proportion of food held in intervention under EC rules in the United Kingdom has been supplied; what action he is taking to persuade EC Heads of Government to ensure proper supplies of food to the former Yugoslavia are made; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom has provided £92.5 million for humanitarian relief in the former Yugoslavia. Of this some £48 million is our share of EC expenditure, the bulk of which has been spent on food aid. This is provided in cash to UN agencies and NGOs, which then purchase supplies that meet their operational requirements. Some EC intervention stocks have been used in the past, but none from the UK.

    The UK has also contributed some £44.5 the first country to respond to the United Nations inter-agency appeal of 25 March, donating a further £15 million, of which £8.5 million was in immediate cash contributions. We maintain a regular dialogue with other EC member states and have urged them to follow suit.

     

    Former Soviet Union

    Mr. Shersby : To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government towards securing international action to decommission nuclear power stations in the former Soviet Union where it is judged that their continued operation poses a hazard to the lives of the peoples of both eastern and western europe; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : At the Munich summit last July, the G7 countries gave their support to a multilateral programme of action designed to improve the safety of Soviet-designed reactors in the former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe. The programme, subsequently endorsed by the G24 countries, included measures to bring about urgent operational and near-term technical improvements to the highest risk plants. The Government are playing a full part in supporting and implementing the programme both bilaterally and through the European Community’s technical assistance programmes. We have contributed £8.25 million to the nuclear safety account recently set up at the European bank for reconstruction and development to finance urgent safety not covered by bilateral assistance programmes.

    The longer-term future of the plants concerned is a matter for the Governments of the states concerned. However, the G7 programme also provided a basis for consideration of the future of these plants, within the framework of market-oriented energy strategies, by setting in train energy studies covering replacement sources of energy and their cost implications. The World bank, with the International Energy Agency, is in the process of completing these studies, in discussion with the countries concerned. The forthcoming Tokyo summit will review progress on the action programme as a whole, including how best to take forward the conclusions of these studies.

     

    Water Charges

    Mr. Tyler : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his statement in the House on 11 March, Official Report, column 1105, to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), what is the timetable for the review of water charges in the south-west; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Responsibility for water charges rests with the Director General of Water Services. My right honourable and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is now examining certain aspects of overall programmes to see if there is any room for manoeuvre. This requires analysis and it would be premature to say more at this stage.

     

    Water Privatisation

    Mr. McLeish : To ask the Prime Minister what implications the decision to abandon the privatisation of water in Northern Ireland has for the future of the water and sewerage services in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : None. The position in Northern Ireland is quite separate from that in Scotland. A decision for Scotland will be taken in the light of circumstances that apply to Scotland. I refer the honourable Member to the reply I gave to the honourable Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on 27 April at column 848.

  • PMQT – 29 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 29th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Couchman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

    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. Couchman : I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he contact President Clinton today, as he contemplates new measures against the Bosnian Serbs, and convey to him the grave reservations of many people in Europe about the possibility of air strikes against any targets, strategic or otherwise, in Bosnia? Will he remind the President of the paramount need to secure the safety of United Nations troops presently serving in Bosnia, including British soldiers, in giving vital humanitarian aid?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital to minimise the risk to the United Nations troops and, of course, to the humanitarian aid civilians who are also there and who, for so long and so bravely, have carried out the humanitarian operation. We will take whatever steps are necessary to achieve that.

    Our other objectives in Bosnia are to do all we can to deter further Serbian attacks and to maximise pressure on all parties to accept the cease fire and a negotiated settlement. But at the moment we are not excluding any viable option which might help to achieve those objectives. We are consulting our allies, especially the United States and our United Nations allies in France and elsewhere, and have expressed our views very clearly to them.

    Mr. John Smith : As the horrendous situation in Bosnia worsens even further and as no clear policy has yet emerged from the international community which would effectively deter continued Serb advance, is it not the case that the acknowledged risks of limited air strikes are increasingly outweighed by the very real dangers of continued inaction? Is there not a serious danger that if another policy is not adopted, moves will be made to lift the arms embargo, which would merely intensify the conflict?

    The Prime Minister : I share the observations that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made about the lifting of the arms embargo. That does present special difficulties. As I have said before, and reiterate now, we cannot rule out further measures for maximising pressure on the Serbs. We are consulting closely our allies and partners. We must, of course, weigh carefully the implications of air strikes for the removal of the arms embargo or, indeed, any other proposals that may arise in our consultations or in the debate in the House this afternoon.

    We must bear particularly in mind the need to sustain the United Nations humanitarian effort. It is all too easy to overlook the fact that, but for that effort over the winter, many hundreds of thousands possibly would have died. The fact that it has continued has been of immense benefit.

    Mr. John Smith : As the days and weeks go by, and the Serbs continue to flout the authority of the United Nations, is it not increasingly clear that if the Serbs are to be stopped, they must be given an ultimatum that is backed by a credible threat to their lines of communication and supply in Bosnia?

    The Prime Minister : I have told the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I will reiterate it, that we have not ruled out options. We are discussing options and it is best to consult on them, consider them, examine the probability of success and the possibility of difficulties and then reach a final conclusion.

     

    Q2. Mr. Duncan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mr. Duncan : While I recognise our success in bringing down the level of inflation and thereby laying the foundations for economic recovery, does the Prime Minister agree that a rapid rise in house prices is not necessarily good news? Should not we aim for a sustainable recovery, based on exports and investments and, at all costs, avoid a return to the cycle of boom and bust?

    The Prime Minister : I share that objective with my hon. Friend. We have said from the outset that we want a recovery that is steady and sustainable, and that is what we have repeatedly taken action to achieve over the past two years. We have said that recovery would follow the reduction of inflation. We got inflation down from 11 per cent. to 2 per cent., and it seems that recovery is now following. As a result of that, we were able to cut interest rates, but that had to follow the reduction in inflation and not precede it. We have worked extremely hard, and it has been extremely difficult for everyone during that period, to get the fundamentals right. We now have them right and I have no intention of throwing away that advantage.

    Mr. Ashdown : Will the Prime Minister pause for a moment in his campaign of self-congratulation– [Interruption.] –and recollect– [Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister pause for a minute in his campaign of self-congratulation and recollect that the price of his policies for Britain has been 3 million unemployed, borrowing at £1 billion a week, a devalued pound and a burden of debt that will not be paid off until the end of the century? Does he really think that that is cause for self-congratulation?

    The Prime Minister : I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman carried the House with him in the introductory part of his question. I acknowledge the difficulties that there have been for many people, not just hon. Members but throughout the country, as we have dealt with the effects of the recession. As the right hon. Gentleman will observe, that recession is not unique to this country. We are emerging from it when many others are still going into it. As we come out of the recession, perhaps I might quote the words of the chairman of Grand Met, Sir Allen Shepherd, who said :

    “Today, in British Industry we have almost everything that we’ve been asking for : low inflation, competitive exchange rates, higher productivity and good industrial relations. On top of that, the skills revolution’ is well under way and will add value to everything we do.”

    I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that and go out and encourage people across the country to take advantage of that position.

    Sir Edward Heath : Does my right hon. Friend recognise that until he and the Government give an absolutely clear and categorical assurance that no British forces, of any kind, will become involved in the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia, except for humanitarian reasons, any other suggestion will be suspect and will make it extremely difficult to persuade people to support the effort that we make? It will be suspect because it will be thought that we shall be dragged, stage by stage, into a European war or that we shall be pushed there by Washington. Both would be intolerable.

    The Prime Minister : As my right hon. Friend knows, we were among the first specifically to put troops into Bosnia to deal with humanitarian matters. We need to consider precisely how we can play a part both in seeking to end the terrible conflict that exists within Bosnia and in ensuring–for this is a clear-cut British strategic interest–that the conflict does not spread beyond Bosnia and lead to a realisation of the greater fear on which my right hon. Friend touched : a wider Balkan war. Those are issues of great complexity, which we need to discuss with our colleagues and friends in the United Nations and NATO.

    I take to heart my right hon. Friend’s remarks, as I know will every right hon. and hon. Member. This is an emerging and changing situation. We shall keep at the forefront of our minds the concern to keep British troops off the ground in Bosnia, but also the need for us to play a part, with our partners, diplomatically, in humanitarian aid, and in using political pressure to bring this dreadful conflict to a conclusion.

    Mr. Hoon : Is the Prime Minister at all embarrassed by the fact that last year some £7 million, or two thirds of the cost of his general election campaign, was received by the Conservative party from foreign sources?

    The Prime Minister : I have to say that that is just a touch rich coming from a member of a party whose entire shadow Cabinet is sponsored by trade unions. As Mr. Tom Sawyer of NUPE said, “It’s as crude as that no say, no pay.”

     

    Q3. Mr. Bates : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mr. Bates : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the gross domestic product figures produced on Monday clearly show that the recession is over and recovery well under way? Does he further agree that those same figures point to growth in the United Kingdom economy commencing in the middle of last year? Does that not further point to his leadership winning the essential battle against inflation and the equally essential battle against the Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right that getting inflation down was the key. We were elected in the spring and the figures that we now have for growth in the second half of last year show that recovery began in the summer.

     

    Q4. Ms Coffey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Ms Coffey : Is the Prime Minister aware that Ferranti International, a company in my constituency, is awaiting the outcome of a bid for a high technology contract from the Saudi Arabian Government to which I understand he gave personal support in his talks with the Saudi Government earlier this year? Can he tell me what action he is taking to ensure that the contract is awarded to a major British industry to prevent the job losses that will surely follow if we do not get the contract?

    The Prime Minister : Defence Ministers are following the programme closely and doing all they can to progress it. The awarding of the contract in due course is a matter for the Saudi Government, but we are doing what we can to assist.

     

    Q5. Mrs. Ann Winterton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mrs. Winterton : Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the British taxpayer should not be expected to pay towards the administration costs of the social charter throughout the EC, when the United Kingdom, quite rightly and properly, has opted out of all its provisions?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is well aware of and shares the Government’s view on the social chapter. The administrative costs of dealing with the social chapter are de minimis and in no sense a burden on the economy.

     

    Arms Exports (Iraq)

    Q6. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to instruct Government Departments to make full disclosure of all documents requested in connection with legal proceedings relating to unlawful export of arms to Iraq; and if he will make it his policy not to issue public immunity interest certificates in connection with any such proceedings.

    The Prime Minister : Government Departments will continue to disclose documents in any legal proceedings in the manner prescribed by law.

    Mr. Dalyell : If that is the answer, why is it that the Crown did not exercise its discretion, when Ministers knew perfectly well of his service to MI5 and MI6, in favour of Paul Grecian in the Ordtech trial?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House that it is quite inappropriate for me to comment when such cases are in the courts. He knows that it is inappropriate and I will not do so.

     

    Engagements

    Q8. Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

    Mr. Pike : Will the Prime Minister rethink the Government’s approach to low pay and the abolition of the wages councils? Will he consider the information prepared by Lancashire county council which not only highlights the scandal of low pay but shows that in areas with no wages councils there is a much higher incidence of low pay, clearly identifying the dangers of their abolition?

    The Prime Minister : I am hardly likely to take any advice from Lancashire county council, given its record in recent years. The sheer scale of the increase in Lancashire’s council tax–I think from memory that it is an extra £84–as a result of the council’s maladministration is remarkable. Therefore, it is most unlikely that I shall take its advice upon that matter.

    On the general subject of wages councils, we have made it clear on a number of occasions in the past that their principal drawback is that they cost jobs to people who would otherwise be employed, and that is something which we care about, even if the hon. Gentleman does not.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Cable and Wireless – 27 April 1993

    Below is the text of the comments made by Mr Major during his visit to the offices of Cable and Wireless on 27 April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Chairman, I’ve a particular reason to thank you for inviting me today. I’ve not only seen your marvellous new building, but you’ve saved me a trip to Niagara! I’m not sure how the water sculptures would look in 10 Downing Street – but they’d certainly make a difference to Cabinet meetings.

    This is a building worthy of a world class company. And you’re certainly that. Our video conference just now showed how far-flung your operations are. You provide national telephone services for Hong Kong and the Caribbean; international services for the former Soviet states; mobile and data services in Japan, Pakistan, Qatar, Yemen and Macau. That’s only a few of the 50 countries where Cable and Wireless is operating.

    By the way, Chairman, I hope you weren’t charging me for those video calls – they’d add up a bit – even at Mercury’s competitive rates.
    I’ve been following Mercury’s progress. You’re making one of our policy priorities a reality. You’re a living proof of effective competition in the telecoms market – and that benefits consumers and providers alike. You have invested some 1.5 million pounds on a digital network that far exceeds your licence obligations. By September last year I believe you were handling nearly ten million calls every working day.

    I have spoken a good deal in public recently about the importance of Britain’s manufacturing and service industries. Cable and Wireless is a company we can be truly proud of. The Government is backing you. We’ll maintain our pressure for free telecom markets worldwide and we’ll continue to foster the conditions for sustained economic growth here in the UK. Cable and Wireless is ideally placed in seize the opportunities that lie ahead.

    I am therefore delighted to open this new headquarters building. I wish everyone in Cable and Wireless – wherever you may be – every success for the future.

  • PMQT – 27th April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Gunnell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

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

    Mr. Gunnell : Now that there is optimism that the bulk of the Maxwell pension funding will be recovered over the next four years, is it not time to end once and for all the uncertainties felt by many of those lobbying us today? Will the Prime Minister authorise the availability of capital now, knowing full well that as funds are recovered most of that money will come back? Eighteen months is too long, for elderly people in particular, to suffer such anxiety. Will the Prime Minister end it now?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that over many months we have made a positive response to the Maxwell reservations. I believe that it was the right thing to do, not least setting up the Maxwell pensioners’ trust, which has raised more than £6 million, and providing £2.5 million to ensure that pensions are paid. We continue to look sympathetically at the problem, but I have no fresh announcements to make today.

    Sir John Wheeler : In the wake of the bomb in the City of London on Saturday, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will bring forward the reinsurance scheme? Will he urge the Leader of the House to make time for legislation for that scheme as soon as possible?

    The Prime Minister : The Government scheme for insurance against terrorist attacks has been providing cover since 1 January this year and the Government will fully honour their commitment under the scheme. It is, of course, a matter for individual businesses whether or not they choose to take out such cover, but everyone who has done so, or has alternative policies, will have been covered against damage caused by the Bishopsgate bomb. The Government scheme is one of reinsurance for the industry, so those who have suffered damage will need to make claims to their insurers in the usual way. On my right hon. Friend’s last point, legislation to provide for payments to be made to the insurance companies under the scheme will be brought before the House as soon as possible. I hope that it will be possible to attract support from all parts of the House for that measure.

    Mr. John Smith : Now that all six teacher and head teacher organisations have appealed to the Secretary of State for Education to suspend this year’s testing and assessment arrangements under the national curriculum, will the Government for once listen to the considered professional judgment of the whole teaching profession and suspend this year’s tests?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the importance that we put behind the principle of testing. He also knows–he will have heard the remarks of Sir Ron Dearing–that we need the experience of this year’s tests to ensure that we are able to remove the unnecessary bureaucracy and make sure that the tests are right for the future. The implication of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question is that he now accepts the principle of testing. I hope that is now so.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not understand that this increasingly bitter dispute is not about the principle of sensible testing but about the dogmatic insistence of an arrogant Secretary of State that his view must prevail against those of governors, teachers and parents? Why does not the Secretary of State recognise that which is recognised by everyone else–that he has lost the argument and that it is an insult to use £700,000 of taxpayers’ money on futile propaganda?

    The Prime Minister : I notice again that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not indicate that he does not accept the principle. I assume that he does accept the principle of testing. In view of his question, he may care to comment on the remark by the National Union of Teachers president, who said :

    “We should annihilate tests in the national curriculum.” I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now condemn that particular comment. On his further point, I must tell him that I do not think it appropriate for teachers to take industrial action at the expense of those tests.

    Mr. John Smith : If the Prime Minister is so confident of parents’ support, why does he not use that £700,000 to hold a ballot, to find out what parents really think? If the Government are sincere about parental choice, why not let the parents choose?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as every other right hon. and hon. Member that two agendas are in play –that of the ordinary teacher who wants less bureaucracy, which we are considering and to which we shall respond, and that of the militants’ opposition to any sort of testing or appraisal and to all our reforms. I note that the right hon. and learned Gentleman implies that he is favour of tests, but he does not have the courage to denounce the NUT and its comments about industrial action.

    Mr. Cash : Will my right hon. Friend reconfirm the assurance that he gave the House unambiguously on 24 September last year, that if the Danes vote no in the second referendum it would be unacceptable for us and the rest of the Community to go ahead without Denmark, and that the Maastricht treaty could not go ahead?

    The Prime Minister : Perhaps my hon. Friend has been misled by some of the reports that he may have seen this morning. The leader of the Progress party in Denmark, which my hon. Friend will know is the only Danish party opposed to the Maastricht treaty, said :

    “There was nothing new in the Foreign Secretary’s remarks, and they were manipulated by the press.”

    That was her comment, not mine. As to my hon. Friend’s specific question, if he will study the transcript of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, a copy of which will be placed in the Library, he will find that my right hon. Friend made four straightforward points. First, we do not expect the Danes to vote no. Secondly, were they to do so the Maastricht treaty could not enter into force because it requires ratification by 12 member states. Thirdly, United Kingdom legislation to ratify the treaty could therefore not proceed. Finally, all 12 members of the European Community would need to hold urgent consultations about what to do next. Each of those points is self-evident. That was said by my right hon. Friend yesterday.

     

    Q2. Mr. McFall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

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

    Mr. McFall : In the right hon. Gentleman’s first speech as Prime Minister, he spoke of a commonsense view of life from a tolerant perspective. Now that the Scottish Conservative party has joined the massive opposition to water privatisation in Scotland, will the Prime Minister display that tolerance by recognising the genuine and universal concern felt in Scotland, where water is regarded as being for the benefit of all–not for the profit of a few? At next month’s Tory conference, will the Prime Minister state that the public interest will best be served by increased investment in the present water and sewerage system? Regardless of whatever the Tories have brought to Scotland in the last 14 years, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall not witness the return of the Victorian cry of “Gardyloos!” to the streets of Edinburgh and Glasgow?

    The Prime Minister : The future structure of water and sewerage services in Scotland is still under consideration. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to go further while that matter remains under consideration.

     

    Q3. Mr. Rathbone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

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

    Mr. Rathbone : Now that Britain is exporting television to Germany, lace to Brussels, cosmetics to the French and pizzas to Italy, as my right hon. Friend pointed out in Manchester last week, does he not think that all British companies now have the competitive edge to develop export markets everywhere?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right to praise our exporters and to point to the opportunities for further exports. We also export more per head than Japan and now have an excellent opportunity to break into new markets and win back old ones. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor increased the amount of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover both last autumn and in the recent Budget. Manufacturing matters ; exporting matters. We seek to support them both.

     

    Q4. Mr. Gerrard : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

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

    Mr. Gerrard : Is the Prime Minister aware that very many people in London are extremely worried about the survival of the travelcard and concessionary fares after bus deregulation and rail franchising and that their fears are echoed today in the report by the Select Committee on Transport? Will the Prime Minister tell us what he intends to do to guarantee the future of the travelcard and concessionary fares schemes?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to study the report of the Select Committee and then respond to it. That is what we will do.

    Mr. Whittingdale : Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating President Yeltsin on his outstanding personal victory at the weekend? Does he agree that, in supporting President Yeltsin, the Russian people have voted in favour of democracy built on market economics? Does this not represent by far the best chance for the future of Russia?

    The Prime Minister : I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right about the last point. I have sent my warm congratulations to President Yeltsin on the outcome of the referendum. The results are remarkable. They show that the Russian people maintain their personal trust in the President and, most important, that they wish him to carry his democratic reforms further. It is a remarkable result on the back of the sacrifices that have been made towards economic transformation. I believe that the Russian people are beginning to see the benefits of individual enterprise. Success for Russia is essential for its people and equally vital for the rest of the world.

     

    Q5. Ms Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 April.

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

    Ms Eagle : Does the Prime Minister not find ironic that, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic, we are losing the battle for our shipyards without even a fight? Given his Government’s refusal to create a strategy for defence diversification, what action does the Prime Minister intend to take in response to the petition handed to him today by the save Cammel Laird community group, asking him to save the yard from closure in July?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Lady knows, there is a problem for shipbuilding round the world as a result of the level of capacity and the level of demand. I understand the hon. Lady’s concern about Cammel Laird and I know that it is shared by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). The yard’s future is primarily a commercial decision for Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. which is having to respond to that worldwide decline, which is not just a problem for the United Kingdom but one for the rest of Europe and for countries in other parts of the world. None the less, I will study with great care the letter from the Cammel Laird support group and reply in due course.

    Mr. Batiste : Will my right hon. Friend reassess the case for identity cards to see whether they can give significant support to the police in their fight against crime and terrorism?

    The Prime Minister : That is a matter which from time to time we will need to review. It is one which has many difficulties. We have looked at it in the past and not found it a terribly attractive proposition. I know that a constituency is demanding it. It is not something which I would wish to rule out, but it is not on our immediate agenda.

     

    Shetland

    Q6. Mr. Wallace : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to pay an official visit to Shetland.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to do so at present, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Earl of Caithness visited Shetland on 29 and 30 March.

    Mr. Wallace : I know that that reply will dismay my constituents. They will be dismayed to learn that, some 16 weeks after the Braer went aground, the Prime Minister has neither visited the area nor indicated any intention of doing so. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Wallace : I shall resist the temptation to ask what would have happened if a ship had gone aground on the white cliffs of Dover. [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and hear the hon. Gentleman out.

    Mr. Wallace : If the Prime Minister came to see at first hand a community’s remarkable, practical and vigorous response to the adversities that affected it on 5 January, he would be very impressed indeed. If, in the attempt to restore the economic fortunes of that community, it is necessary to embark on a marketing exercise to restore Shetland’s good name for good-quality produce, will the Prime Minister repeat that the polluter should pay? If so, will he give the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund a nudge in the right direction?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly say to the hon. Gentleman that the response of the people in the area was indeed remarkable. That was noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and by a number of my other right hon. Friends, all of whom visited the area in the period immediately following the tragedy. What the hon. Gentleman neglected to mention was that an economic impact study is being mounted under the direction of Shetland Islands council, and with the participation of Shetland Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. That will help to target resources where they are most needed, and I think that it is the right way in which to proceed for the present.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in London – 26 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made in London on Monday 26th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Chairman of Governors, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen. In welcoming you warmly to London may I firstly refer briefly to the events of Saturday. All too many of us present today have had experience of terrorism in one country or another. The world’s terrorists have one thing in common – failure. They have failed to attract widespread support, they have failed the rules of civilised life, they have failed to undermine democracy. On Saturday they murdered Mr Ed Henty. I know that I speak for everyone in expressing my deepest sympathy to his family.

    For years terrorists in the United Kingdom have tried to bomb and murder their way to a political objective. They have won no sympathy for their cause and nothing but contempt for their campaign. On Saturday they tried to maim the commerce of the City of London. They failed again. The EBRD, for one, illustrated that very clearly. Close to the explosion the staff of the bank worked on without interruption. You, the delegates, continued your meetings without interruption.

    This morning London has given its response. The markets are open in currencies and commodities, stocks and shares, insurance and shipping. In short, today in the City it is business as usual.

    Later this week I will meet the Lord Mayor of London to reconsider security measures. But even as we repair the damage the City will continue to operate as one of the great financial centres of the world.

    I want this morning to talk about an idea of Europe and an idea of partnership. When the Iron Curtain crashed down across the middle of Europe in the late-1940s it divided a continent that had been joined by the ties of history, culture, a religion, for over 1,000 years. Much of European history has been about the ebb and flow of that sense of European identity. Religious strife fractured the unity of Christendom. Emperors, military adventurers, ideologists and dictators made one attempt after another to impose a forced unity on the continent. The Stalinist attempt to create an empire of the Soviets from the Pacific to the Atlantic was no more than the latest in a long line of inevitable failures. I say inevitable because it is not possible to impose a crude uniformity on a continent whose traditions are as rich and as varied as ours.

    The collapse of communism in Europe is both a restoration and a revolution. It has restored national freedom to the countries of the former Soviet Bloc, it has restored individual freedom to the citizens of those countries and it has restored the possibility of partnership between East and West, between countries whose divisions have caused so much suffering over the centuries.

    But the end of the Cold War has imposed its own burden, the burden of choice and the burden of responsibility. The fate of the peoples of Eastern Europe, of Russia and of the countries of the former Soviet Union lies first of all in the hands of the people of those countries themselves. It is not surprising that many in those countries and many outside observers are daunted by the political, social and economic challenge that they face.

    For now they have to undergo a new revolution, not a revolution of barricades, of flags and slogans, not the exhilarating popular European revolutions of the 19th and 20th century which saw so much heroism among ordinary people and so much betrayal by their leaders, what Eastern Europe faces today is a new kind of revolution, a revolution in political attitudes, in methods of work, in economic and political institutions, in international relations. It is a revolution in which the old kinds of rhetoric and the old kinds of heroism are a positive disadvantage, a revolution without glamour.

    Such a revolution cannot take place quickly, it cannot take place easily. To bring it to success will require patience and tolerance, it will require tact and understanding both within the countries of Eastern Europe and from their partners in the West.

    But it is a prospect of hope as well as of apprehension. Look at the progress that has been made, even in countries with little experience in that most difficult of political arts – the art of democracy. Free and fair elections have become the norm, the norm in countries where 98.8 percent of the electorate once used to vote for a single candidate. Slovakia and the Czechlands have parted company peacefully and by agreement. President Yeltsin is the first Russian leader in the history of that immense country to be elected by popular suffrage. Russia voted again yesterday, so far we have only the early results, they suggest that the Russian people have renewed their support for President Yeltsin, for democracy and for reform. Those are the policies that have also attracted the strong support of the international community. As Russia moves towards reform she deserves our continuing support for her success is in the interests of us all.

    Mr Chairman, economic change everywhere is gathering strength. Poland is the first country in Eastern Europe to regain economic growth. In the Czechlands privatisation is proceeding apace. Foreign investment is flourishing in Hungary. Estonia has established its currency. Even in places where there is little or no tradition of private business ordinary people are beginning to take advantage of new opportunities. They are working for themselves and for their families. Small scale business and agriculture are spreading in Russia and elsewhere. Larger enterprises are being privatised. Industries which were run by bureaucrats are being handed over to the people who best know how to make them work.

    The grounds for hope, hope that the process of renewal and change can be brought to success are not trivial. The former communist countries of Europe enjoy solid assets, they are well educated, skilled in many of the scientific, industrial and technical skills which a modern industrial society requires. They are now well informed both about the problems of their own countries and about the possibilities of the outside world, they are free to meet foreigners, to travel abroad, to draw on the experiences of those in other countries who have benefited from the opportunities offered by a liberal, economic and political system.

    And above all, above all the people of the former communist countries of Europe can never again be seduced by the Marxist lie, by the proposition that the state is capable of imposing prosperity and that it is worth in exchange surrendering political freedom and the right to think for oneself.

    History could of course take a different path. Yugoslavia is an extreme and harrowing example, a country which was making good economic progress and appeared to the outside world to be shaking off ancient ethnic and religious rivals has dissolved into war and atavism. Much about the former Yugoslavia was unique to that country. I do not wish to suggest that I expect new, similar tragedies to break out elsewhere.

    But Yugoslavia is far from the only ethnic conflict bedevilling the post-communist world, Nogorno-Karabakh, for example, must not be overlooked. These are warnings that we must not allow human passion and despair to escape from our control.

    Those of us in Western Europe who have not suffered oppression, who have not suffered oppression and the artificial poverty which communism imposed on our fellows to the east, cannot assume the burden of choice and the burden of responsibility on their behalf. In the end it has to be the initiative of ordinary people and their common enterprises, freely entered into, which will bring the former communist countries of Europe through their present difficulties.

    But we in Western Europe have a clear and inescapable moral duty: to demonstrate in practice our solidarity with those who lived under communism, who had the courage to overthrow it and who are now paying the price of its political and economic deprivations.

    That is not simply a moral duty, it is a debt of gratitude to those heroic people in the East who fought for political change and who did so much to lift the terrible threat of a devastating war which hung over all of us and over our children.

    We in Western Europe bring to our support for our neighbours to the East many instruments, international institutions, governmental programmes, business collaboration and the generous efforts of individuals. My own government has contributed 1.8 billion pounds sterling through bilateral and multilateral programmes to help the former communist countries. Others have been equally generous and we are mobilising our collective institutions as well.

    The main collective institutions of Western Europe, like those of the former Soviet Bloc, were created in large part as a response to the threats of the Cold War. But unlike the institutions of the Soviet Bloc, they were freely entered into by their members. They have therefore survived the end of the Cold War and are beginning to adapt to the challenges of a world no longer conditioned by the old fears. The European Community is already strengthening its partnership with its neighbours to the East, it has generous technical assistance programmes in place. It and its member states together provide the lion’s share of Western aid. And beyond that the Community, the European Community, is very conscious of its moral and political vocation to support democracy throughout the continent. It looks forward to welcoming countries from the East as it once welcomed those from the south, as soon as those countries become capable of bearing the political and economic burdens, responsibilities and rights of membership of the Community.

    At Edinburgh last December, Community Heads of State and Government welcomed a far reaching report from the Commission on relations with our associate partners in central Europe. At Copenhagen we must take decisions. We need to tell the central Europeans clearly and unambiguously that we want them inside the European Union as full members. They may ask when I say to them it is up to you to make yourselves ready for membership, it is up to us to help you prepare for that membership.

    That is why the Europe or Association Agreements are so important. They have come in for plenty of criticism, not least, Mr President, from time to time, from you. But let us not belittle what has been achieved. The agreements have substantially liberalised trade. Trade between the European Community and the Visegrad countries has already increased by some 18 percent. But the process of liberalisation needs to go faster. Your cherished desire, and mine, Mr President, is to liberalise trade throughout the continent. I welcome unreservedly the European Community’s recent decision to set the goal of a free trade area with Russia. We must now work hard to put it in place.

    We all have problems in opening up our markets in certain sensitive areas. But I believe the Community should practise what it preaches. Trade liberalisation is the most effective and permanent means we have to help consolidate political stability and economic growth. After all, exports from Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia countries to the Community represent 50 percent of their total exports but only 2 percent of European Community imports. We cannot expect them to liberalise, moving towards market economies, if we do not lead by example.

    Indeed we can afford to be generous. As consumers we all benefit from our own generosity. If the Europe Agreements are implemented imaginatively, if we open our markets, then accession at an early date should be a realistic objective.

    NATO is another institution in transition. It no longer faces the threat to the East which was its main reason for being. Instead it is developing forms of cooperation with its former adversaries. Politicians from East and West meet in the North Atlantic Cooperation Council to discuss mutual problems of security. Russian Generals visit NATO military headquarters to talk about the problems of running down military establishments as the Cold War recedes into the past. There is even talk, so far highly preliminary talk, of the possibility of mounting joint peace-keeping operations in the disturbed parts of our common continent. It is all light years away from the terrifying confrontation of the past.

    And in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, whose annual meeting we are celebrating today, we are specifically devoted to the proposition that all Europeans and all those outside Europe who have an interest in the fate of the continent have a duty to combine in partnership to ensure that the post-communist revolution in Europe leads to prosperity and to democracy.

    The bank is still developing its activities, still learning from the experience of the two short years since it was set up. It has already contributed over 1.6 billion to western investment in Eastern Europe. It has already generated a total project value of 7.9 billion pounds sterling. That is a result for which the bank deserves credit. The bank must now go on about its task in the most cost-effective way possible, ensuring value for taxpayers’ money, of building up its operations in the region to assist the transition to market economies and to foster the private sector.

    I spoke a few moments ago of the importance of small business. The EBRD has just been asked by the Group of Seven Foreign and Finance Ministers, following their meeting in Tokyo, to establish a fund to promote small and medium size Russian enterprises. This was a key priority identified by the Russians. It provides the ideal chance for the bank to show its strength. In the end, however, it is not international institutions or governments alone which will bring the post-communist revolution to a peaceful, democratic and prosperous fruition. Politicians, officials and experts from outside drop briefly into the former communist capitals and dispense advice, often I believe without fully appreciating the immensity of the political and social, or even of the technical problems, which face advice, even when it is right and then risks being rejected.

    No, in the end, what matters is the human element, the sense that we Europeans are involved together as equals in a common undertaking. The truth is that the political and economic tasks which face the former communist countries of Europe are tasks of unprecedented difficulty. There are no simple, no easy, no rapid solutions and none of us has a monopoly of the right answers. Even if the prime responsibility for coping with the post-communist revolution must rest with the people most concerned, we all have a common interest in their success.

    That truth is understood by ordinary businessmen and ordinary people in both halves of our formerly divided continent. I am regularly amazed and moved by the number of professional people in my own country who are willing to make real sacrifices of their own time and money to help their fellow professionals in the East. I am struck by the number of Western businessmen who believe that they have a duty as well as an interest in seeking out viable joint projects with the businessmen who are emerging from the wreckage of communism. And. I know that their efforts are welcomed by their partners, by all those ordinary people in the East who are taking energetic advantage of their new freedoms to work effectively for themselves, for their families, for their communities and for their countries. For most of them – remember this – for most of them it is the first opportunity they have ever had to control their own fate.

    Let me conclude, Mr Chairman, with this thought. It is the task of all of us here today, politicians, bankers, officials, to provide the political framework and the financial backing which will help all those people to achieve their aims. For it is by the efforts of millions of ordinary people that we shall recreate the ancient oneness of Europe and lay finally to rest the demons which have caused, and still cause, so much suffering in our common continent. In that cause we should work, and work again, until we have success and they have prosperity.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Freight Transport Association Dinner – 26 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Freight Transport Association Dinner, given in London on Monday 26th April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Director General, My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen. I listened with very great interest to what the Director General had to say and I was struck at the outset by the difficult choice he had to make between a Ratners clock and the opportunity to speak at this dinner. I think I speak on behalf of everyone in saying that we are very glad he decided to come and speak to us.

    But I did feel a little uneasy when he mentioned the clock because it just so happens, to mark his retirement, I was going to bring with me a small token of our esteem – a clock. Fortunately I do not remember where it came from and I do not remember where I put it, but I now know it does not matter because the Director General does not like clocks anyway.

    Mr President, when I received an invitation, I was invited to come by Norman Fowler, Gary Purdy said he did not know what Norman Fowler said to me to persuade me to come. Well I must let you know he said nothing, he just gripped me warmly by the throat and refused to let go. But I now offer the Director General a word of warning, because he is sitting next to Norman. During the general election campaign which we had about, it seems, forty years ago, I spent a great deal of time with Norman Fowler and everywhere we went something curious happened, people turned up to throw eggs, at Norman. Now he is obviously used to this because he kept ducking and they missed him and they hit me. Well all I can say to you, Director General, you are in a very dangerous seat sitting where you are.

    Mr President, this is one of a series of speeches I am making about British industry but I am doing so because I believe British industry matters, that manufacturing matters, I spelt out why in Manchester last week. And services matter as well, they matter because they too create wealth and jobs and they matter because they are vital to manufacturing. The two are inextricably twinned.

    And transport of course is a very good example and freight transport is an integral part of the whole industrial process. And if I may say so, echoing to an extent what the Director General said, freight transport is something which we in this country, or perhaps more accurately I should say you, are world leaders at.

    And I will tell you why I believe we are so good, because freight transport in Britain is overwhelmingly private sector, is overwhelmingly deregulated and provided in an open competitive environment. Your Director General touched in his speech on the transport history of our country. I wonder, Mr President, if you realise that in the reign of Charles II the cost of transporting goods from London to Birmingham was 7.00 pounds a tonne and from London to Exeter 12.00 pounds a tonne. Now I am told it costs 7.50 pounds from London to Birmingham and 10.00 pounds a tonne from London to Exeter – not a great deal of difference until you remember that in the intervening three centuries inflation has risen by 4,800 percent. Mr President, I knew yours was a competitive industry and so did you, but I bet you did not know how competitive an industry it was. So I offer you, if I may, an advertising slogan – “No price increases for 300 years” – then I expect you to keep it for the next 300 years at the end of which, if you do, Norman Fowler will come here and you can all throw eggs at him.

    Of course there are other differences too. There were highwaymen in 1660, now there are VAT men, motorway maintenance men, speed limiters and tachographs. Mr President, we need an efficient and successful freight transport industry. My message tonight is that the government wishes to see your industry successful and, where we can, to help it be so. I do not mean by interfering and telling you how to do your job, I would not frankly, I could not do that. But the first way the government can help is by getting the economy right and then keeping the economy right. I know that times have not been easy for your industry, or indeed other industries in the last year or so. Those of you who move goods to and from other European countries such as Germany, France, Spain, will be well aware of the downturn now affecting them. Those who regarded the recession as a British phenomenon may now begin to re-think their prejudices about that particular point.

    But we are now seeing the pendulum in Britain swinging back, in welcome fashion, swinging back towards growth. Manufacturing output is up, exports are up, retail sales are up in March to the highest level ever recorded, car production and car sales are up, house sales are up and there is I believe the beginning of a new mood of confidence throughout British industry. But in just the last two days we have had two very important indications of recovery. Unemployment has fallen for the second month in succession, it is still too high but it is a very welcome sign. And today we have good news on the widest measure of prosperity of all – Britain’s output jumped upwards in the first three months of this year, the biggest increase for three years.

    Mr President, we said that low inflation would create the climate for recovery. We have driven inflation down and recovery is following, as we said it would. Both the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission now forecast that Britain will have the fastest growth of any major European Community country in the next two years.

    But perhaps even more important than that is the longer term perspective. We have the right conditions to sustain recovery. Inflation is low, under 2 percent, the lowest for around a quarter of a century. We mean to keep it down. Interest rates are down to 6 percent, the lowest for 15 years and, crucially important for competition, the lowest in the European Community. We have a competitive exchange rate. Manufacturing productivity is now improving at its fastest for six years and we have seen a record fall in wage costs. Mr President, we have not seen that combination of circumstances for 40 years and we must take the opportunities that exist there and not throw them away in the future.

    With Britain emerging from its difficulties and with the single market opening Europe to British firms, British industry has unparalleled opportunities before it today. Mr President, British industry must grasp those opportunities, that is why we have given priority both to manufacturing industry and to the services which support it. And that is why also, in a difficult time for public spending, as it must be if we are determined to keep inflation low, we have given such a high priority to the infrastructure programme. That is the second way I believe government can help.

    Good transport links are fundamental to a sound economy and over the next 3 years we will be spending a record 6.3 billion pounds on national roads, from the M25 to the A1 in North Yorkshire. Investment in British Rail has been running at the highest level since the early 1960s.

    But even more important, and you touched on this and I wish to say something about it, we are bringing private capital into areas that used to be public sector responsibilities. Let me make it absolutely clear, that is not a matter of ideology, it is not just a clever way of cutting public spending, it is our conviction, based on experience, that the private sector runs industries more efficiently and more profitably than the government can do even with the most efficient bureaucrats to help them.

    Just remember a few years ago! Twelve years ago, the taxpayer underwrote the cost of a new fleet of lorries for the National Freight Corporation, a new fleet of buses for the National Bus Company and a new fleet of aircraft for British Airways. The taxpayer also underwrote the cost of new port facilities at Southampton and Tilbury and new aircraft facilities at Heathrow and because the taxpayer underwrote the costs the Government had to approve every decision and those of you here who remember those days will no doubt remember something else as well – that uncomfortable feeling of bureaucracy breathing down your neck week after week, day after day and hour after hour.

    Today, how very old-fashioned all that seems. Both companies are now owned by the private sector; they are funded by the private sector; they provide efficient services for their customers; they now make profits for their shareholders not losses for the taxpayer and now we are bringing finance into the funding of roads and railways. Very innovative some say. Is it, I wonder?

    Don’t forget that many of Britain’s roads and most of its railways were built in the first place by private industries and financed by private investors. What we are doing is mobilising private finance again. Private finance has built the Channel Tunnel; private finance has built the Queen Elizabeth II bridge between Dartford and [inaudible]; private finance is building the second Severn Crossing; private finance is going to be largely responsible for building the Heathrow Express Line; private finance will have a huge role to play in building the Channel Tunnel rail link and cross-rail; and there will be more. Wherever possible, we will ensure that private firms provide all the finance and all the expertise and get the full financial returns and where risks and costs have to be shared, and in some cases they will have to be shared between the private sector and the Government – we will encourage joint ventures between the public and the private sectors. Mr. President, we are building on the developments of the 1980s and we are intended to keep innovation going in the 1990s.

    I noted Gary’s remarks tonight on inter-urban road charging and I have no doubt John MacGregor will spot them as well. John will be publishing a Green Paper on that shortly. I know you will want to study the options carefully and we will look forward to receiving your response and we will study that and take notice of that no less carefully but I want to turn for a moment to another matter you touched upon and that is the privatisation of British Rail.

    A great deal of nonsense has been talked about the privatisation of British Rail. I put the point bluntly for I feel it strongly. The privatisation is not ideology but plain common sense and national self-interest. It is common sense that the private sector will run the railways more efficiently and it is in our national self-interest that they should do so. The UK as a whole needs the best possible efficient, reliable railway service. Bringing in private-sector skills and liberalising access to the network are in my judgement the best ways to achieve that and an expanding economy will bring a growing market for freight transport in which there is undoubtedly a place for rail freight. I listened extremely carefully to what your Director-General had to say on that.

    Let me make it crystal clear we do want rail freight to be used to the full as a result of the improvements and competitiveness that privatisation of the railways will bring but we certainly do not intend to penalise road freight as the counterpoint of that policy.

    Mr. President, better infrastructure, road and rail, means a more productive, more efficient and therefore a more profitable freight industry as a whole and I am sure you will benefit to the full from the changes and the opportunities which private financing will bring.

    Mr. President, just a little over a year ago, I have to confess I did some of your members out of a valuable business opportunity. I didn’t call the removal men to 10 Downing Street! I am not this evening prepared to apologise for that but I do intend to make up for the lapse by fighting to win new opportunities for your members abroad, beginning with Europe.

    To those of you who don’t and haven’t yet lifted your eyes to the prospects of business that exists within the European Community, I say to you do so speedily for those prospects are real, they are growing and they are glittering prospects for the future for such an efficient industry as we have in this country. The opening of the Channel Tunnel and the opening of Europe’s Single Market are two significant events with huge implications for the freight industry.

    The Single Market has already opened up most Community transport markets to transport operators and we have now agreed programmes for opening-up air and coastal services with each member state. Road transport within each member state is next on the agenda; it has been partly liberalised and we shall continue to press for agreement on complete freedom of access as soon as possible.

    Mr. President, what do those new freedoms mean? They mean greater choice for transport users and greater opportunities for transport operators. They mean more competition within the Community and beyond and. I have not a shred of doubt that British freight operators will rise to that challenge and grasp that business but to enable them to do so, there is something we have to do. By “we”, I mean the Government. We have got to make sure those new freedoms really happen. We have won the right to offer new services, ferry services or road haulage for example. Governments must not be allowed to put obstacles in their way.

    Let me say this to you tonight, Mr. President: your Government will insist on your right to offer your services right the way through the European Community and the European Commission has important responsibilities to enforce these rights and I believe that they will meet them and we will certainly encourage them to do so.

    Mr. President, during Britain’s Presidency of the Community [section of speech not recorded] right conditions for you to get out there and succeed. The economy is set fair for steady growth with low inflation. Some £3 billion of capital expenditure on roads and rail alone in the current year with new opportunities for private sector investment; new freedoms in Europe for British companies to turn their competitive edge into new markets in road, rail, air and sea transport; and a radical review of deregulation to get Government off industry’s back.

    In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to pick out just one point from. your Director-General’s speech tonight. He urged this industry to be proud of its achievements. I would say simply this:

    So you should be! Competitiveness, safety, environmental standards, industrial performance have all improved dramatically in recent years. You do have an exemplary record. Be confident! Be proud of that record and don’t in any sense be afraid to take the remarkable opportunities that lie ahead of you in the 1990s. I have no doubt about your capacity to take those opportunities and turn them into profits for your companies in the future. Let me conclude by saying simply this: Mr. President, as you do so, you will have the Government’s full support. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Manchester – 23 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, made in Manchester on Friday 23rd April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    My Lord Mayor, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen. I would like first, Gill, to thank you for your budget submissions, a little early perhaps but I will take very careful note of them. A curious fact, Gill, very curious, I noticed it particularly when you were speaking, but when I was in Wales they asked me for an airport like Manchester’s.

    Can I say, firstly, how delighted I am to be back here in Manchester. It is always a delight to escape from the hot house of Westminster and see what is happening in the real world, so it is a great pleasure to be back here today. Two hundred and fifty years ago, Daniel Defoe called Manchester “the greatest village in the country”. No longer true of course. Today Manchester is no longer a village but one of the great cities of Europe. And I say that this evening not as a politician’s wholesale civility but this is the city of wholesale English commerce, and you should be proud of it. This is Brindley and Crompton country where faster transport set an eight-fold increase in yarn and cloth production and together that did spark the industrial revolution and sold shirts to the world.

    But what over the years has made it from a village to a great city? I think the answer to that is quite clear. Because leading, and not following, Manchester has changed with the times. Today we all face a similar challenge, as Bob Dylan sang many years ago in my youth – the times they are a changing. They are certainly changing now, rapidly perhaps, more rapidly in this decade than any decade, even the most venerable amongst us can remember in their long life. In our interests, our cold self-interest, we must make sure in this country that we lead that change and lead it fast. Captive markets for our goods around the world no longer exist, the captive market these days is an inscription upon our headstone. And the Lordly assumption that somehow it is a privilege to buy from the British has passed into history.

    The world has changed. Japan and the countries of the Pacific Rim are giant manufacturing powers. China is set increasingly in the decades ahead to become a huge industrial power. That is the competition that we need to face in this country in the future. That is the competition, so let us not flinch, let us not fear, our job is quite simple and quite clear [inaudible] and train and prepare and export and beat that competition for our own domestic prosperity in the rest of the ’90s and in the new century.

    So we do not need to make the mistake, and dare not make the mistake, of falling for the alternative to complacency, that British gift for graceful despair. In this country we can compete brilliantly and we are now well placed to win in the world’s market places.

    Just contemplate, just step back for a moment from the painful necessities of the last two years and consider the position today and just listen, please, to the scores that Britain chalks up and that you do not hear often enough. we have inflation below 2 percent, better than most of the European Community and better than most of the G7. We have a highly competitive exchange rate. We have interest rates, the lowest in the European Community and the lowest for 15 years.

    We have not seen that combination of remarkable trading circumstances for nearly 40 years. And I believe that industry and commerce have recognised that reality better than many others. Manufacturing output is up, investment is up, productivity is rising fast, you have kept wage costs competitive and we have sought to do that in the public sector as well, doing better than Germany or Japan and better than at any time for a generation.

    And as the Chancellor said earlier this week, Britain is set for 2 years of solid growth, growth that will be the faster in the European Community big league. As we meet here this evening, after what I know have been difficult circumstances for some time, we have every reason to be confident about our future economic prospects.

    We said two years ago that low inflation would bring recovery. We have brought inflation down, recovery is now following, as we said that it would. Yesterday’s news that unemployment has fallen, fallen for the second month running, is very welcome news, welcome that it has fallen in every region, welcome for the 50,000 people that Britain has now put back to work this year. More businesses are beginning to take people on again and job vacancies are rising. All that can only add to confidence.

    That recovery will benefit every bit of Manchester’s increasingly broad-based economy, a diversified, a diversified and successful base that is well represented in the attendance here this evening. Your region’s service sector is vital to the nation as a whole. And as an employer your financial and business services alone provide work for nearly a quarter of a million people, indeed even more now that Mercury is bringing an extra 500 jobs.

    And Manchester is the student capital of Britain, leading the way in the sciences and technologies that we will need for tomorrow. Three universities, a world renowned business school, UMIST, you name it, you have got it here in Manchester.

    That is not just an investment for the future. Education is a key part of the service economy of today, a service economy that is also showing its paces abroad. The North-West Chambers show that service exports have sharply improved over the last quarter. Good, good, but if the recovery is to last and prosperity to grow, we have to win and continue to win right across the market place in the service sector and beyond the service sector. Because vital though services are to our prosperity, we cannot depend on services alone, we need a vibrant, thriving, manufacturing base and I hope every part of this country will recognise that for the future.

    So, Mr President, I hope our friends in the service sector this evening will forgive me if I turn from them to manufacturing because I want to say this evening a few words about the importance of manufacturing and just a bit about our export success. And where better than here, in Manchester, in this hotel where Mr Rolls met Mr Royce in 1904. We British have done something typically British and wholly remarkable, we have managed a fanfare without trumpets. We are exporting more now than at any time in our history. But in the export markets how do operate? We operate like Jeeves, we just shimmer silently, export discreetly, we do not tell anyone, it might give offence. Well I think we should tell people about our successes in taking export markets right the way across the world, it is about time the British beat the drum for British successes and let know what we are doing right.

    Ask people around the world – who are the great exporters? And they will speak with respect and admiration of Japan. That is right, they are a great exporting nation, the Japanese. But what about us? We British export 400 pounds per person per year more than the Japanese – 1,800 pounds for every man, woman and child, compared with 1,400 pounds for the Japanese.

    What are we to do with the Gordon Glooms who always say that British industry is crumbling? I think people should listen. In financial services, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, the water industry, power generation, areas of food processing, the drink industry, garments, aerospace, defence equipment, the oil and gas industry, mining equipment, bio-technology and international construction, we lead the pack in this country and we should continue to take that message right the way around the world.

    British companies are big companies, powerful companies, successful companies. British companies account for ten out of the top European twenty companies by profitability, and eleven out of the top twenty by size. And although the trade gap is wide, we are seriously engaging with the competition. We export televisions to Germany, lace to Brussels, cosmetics to the French, cars to Japan and with a brass neck that would have delighted Richard Arkwright, we now sell pizzas to Italy. One day will speak of Salford as the world’s centre of pizzas – Italians will never speak to me again.

    The balance of trade in the motor industry will be revolutionised over the next few years, in partnership of course, rightly in partnership joining and beating.

    But what of the future? Well I am a fairly tolerant soul. But I will tell you one thing I do not like, I do not like to see British manufacturers retreating from the field. The British car industry has turned retreat into triumph, other industries can do the same.

    And why is it that so many people seem to have such a low view of manufacturing? I think part of that view comes from the out-dated image of manufacturing as an employer of large numbers of unskilled people in sprawling plants doing heavy manual work, the ancient mythical world of the cloggit and thump brass hammerworks. That is not a low view of manufacturing, it is a total misunderstanding of modern day manufacturing. Reality, manufacturing reality, is more like the British Aerospace works I saw today, or the factory just 30 miles from Manchester I saw the last time I was here, a factory spinning optical fibres, modern expanding, sharp, the biggest producer outside America and selling right the way across the world.

    These are great symbols, but we want more than symbols, we want fast reader replication and we want it now in ever increasing numbers. And improving competitiveness is the key to expanding our manufacturing base. We know that when we have manufactured we can sell. As recovery picks up we must make sure there are more and more British goods for customers to buy of the quality and the price that they want to buy, available at the time that they want to buy it.

    There is, I have to say to you, a danger that nags in my mind time and time again, it is always there waiting. Time and time again since the war exports have gone up in recession but when the recovery came companies abandon the export drive for the warm debilitating huddle of the home market. Well that must not happen this time, in our own interests we must not permit that to happen again. We are determined to build up our export success and that is why in the Autumn Statement and the Budget the Chancellor increased export credits and cut its cost to business. You keep exporting and we will keep supporting and between us we will bring prosperity to this country.

    Success requires continuous effort, continuous improvement, we cannot let up. Manchester I think knows something of this: the fourth-generation mill-owners who bought shooting estates, lived in Surrey and wouldn’t replace old machinery; the soft and selfish gentlemen manufacturers – they very nearly destroyed Lancashire for you. Let us remember them in order not to be like them in future. “Change not decay” must be our creed.

    Let me make it clear beyond any doubt whatsoever that I believe the Government has a duty to work with industry to help industry to meet that challenge, not Whitehall picking winners. the winners picking themselves and Government helping them heart and soul.

    Everything we do has to be supportive of you. We want less of a tax burden on the profits that you need for investment. That is why we are pressing down on public expenditure; it is why we have to give priority within that spending to infrastructure projects which spell business. Manchester’s own Metrolink that Gill mentioned earlier is a very real example, so is the Channel rail link, so is the Forth Crossing in Edinburgh. That is why we are seeking to reform education. That is what tests in schools are all about, to find out what the children know and what the children don’t know because we need to know what they don’t know so that we can teach them what they should know. They deserve the best, they need the tests; you need the best working for you and the vital importance of our education system cannot be overstated. [Applause]. That is why we are doing more than ever before for good vocational training to give our youngsters the best possible start in the best possible jobs, a recipe for the best possible success for Britain. It is why science these days is a Cabinet job and why we are overhauling what we do on science and innovation to ensure Britain’s effort and brain power backs industrial success.

    It is why in the budget we have given extra help to Britain’s exporters; it is why we have cut businesses’ rate burden and cut Advance Corporation Tax to boost businesses’ cash flow by £2 billion a year and when we have winners we support them everywhere. I did it recently in India and the Gulf. British firms had done the work, Government helped unlock the contracts. £5 billion of orders and 20,000 jobs safeguarded for years to come.

    I saw the fruits of that partnership earlier today when I met the Gulf Tornado builders at British Aerospace. I and my colleagues will give that backing, so must each and every British embassy around the world. Graceful manners and an elegant understanding are surprisingly well-suited to the indispensable arts of trade. Let them by all means pour out the gin and tonics but then let them sell both bottles to the opposition [Applause].

    Winning back lost markets is the only long-term policy for British industry and for the whole economy and manufacturing is the soldier in the front line of that struggle.

    Mr. President, you touched delicately upon the point – a number of points as I recall but certainly this one: over recent months there has been a tiny frisson of controversy over our European policy. [Laughter]. Let me set out my position clearly.

    Commercial success starts on our own doorstep and our doorstep is Europe. When Europe walks, it walks in shoes exported from Manchester. The new rail terminus at Charles de Gaulle Airport is work done in Bolton. The cocktail chatter is that the Government is too obsessed with Maastricht when we should be concentrating on jobs. In what world are those cocktail chatterers living? Jobs and sales are what being in the heart of Europe is all about for our future. [Applause]

    What made possible the vast expansion in small and medium-sized businesses and new jobs in the 1980s? Where did they find their main export markets? Overwhelmingly in Europe. An example not far from here: a Leyland company went into Europe a few years back with one Chesterfield in the back of an estate car; in the Single Market it now does a million pounds of business.

    Have your reservations by all means. No-one says that Europe is perfect but that story tells why we are there. Since we joined, our exports to it have grown nearly 50 percent faster than have those of our own EFTA partners. That is almost £20 billion last year, twenty export billion poundsworth of jobs. No wonder the Scandinavians and the Austrians wish to join the Community! What an irony that a nation which sought trade when Tuscan merchants brought wool in the Cotswolds in 1370 should contemplate holding back from the richest free trade market of all time.

    I believe that the Chambers of Commerce understand the importance of Europe to Britain’s trading strategy and of the Maastricht process to that strategy. The President of your Association, Christopher Stewart-Smith, who is here this evening, wrote to me recently specifically to support what we are doing. Let me quote from his letter. He wrote as follows:

    “Those who suggest we have gone far enough with the Single European Act are making a mistake that British business cannot afford. Businesses do not want to see the clock turned back nor would they welcome the reintroduction of new non-tariff barriers. Britain needs the commitment to subsidiarity to avoid unnecessary interference in domestic issues.”

    That, Christopher, is it smack between the eyes, a bull’s-eye beyond a doubt! That is the message that business should give to doubters about our commitment to Europe. Maastricht opens the way to the sort of Community that we want to see. Taking that essential step away from centralisation, we gain the benefits of the Single Market without the drawbacks and at the end of the inky labyrinth of treaty subclauses is a trading Europe. Especially here in Manchester that is important to us, a trading Europe in which we can send our exports in the future.

    Yesterday in the House of Commons, we finished the Committee Stage of the Maastricht Bill. Let us now finish the Bill and get on with the job of building prosperity for Britain in Europe and put these squabbles behind us. [Applause].

    Mr. President, here this evening perhaps I will be permitted to say just a word about the Chambers of Commerce movement. It is already helping its members with Maastricht but I think it can do more. I would welcome a bigger billing for the Chambers. It can only help the businessmen to swap ideas and learn from each other. I would like in the future to see Government develop the same relationship with the Chambers that it has developed with the CBI. The one-stop initiative is a tangible sign and naturally Manchester has won the bid to be one of the pilots of this new and I believe utterly worthwhile initiative.

    Here in Manchester this evening there is perhaps one other issue that commands me like a referee’s whistle – the City’s bid for the Olympics. Manchester’s bid goes beyond pleasing discus fanciers. Building the Olympic facilities and hosting the Games should generate £4 billion of new spending in the region and make 11,000 jobs but better yet, it will be a shop window beyond dreams. The world would see what North-West England has to offer. Manchester is already eighth in the European league of best cities in which to locate a business but it can move up. I know and everyone here knows – and Gill mentioned it to me earlier – that Manchester has ambitions to be top of the league so the Government is shouting and finessing for Manchester’s bid. We have put up £75 million for the bid and for the initial construction programme. That starts with the Olympic arena and the National Cycling Centre. We are providing some £40 million funding towards the regeneration of East Manchester this year and we are backing Manchester’s bid by ensuring that all the necessary facilities can be built. A state-of-the-art Olympics for the start of the new millennium. Where better than here in Britain and here in Manchester? [Applause]

    I am honoured to play my part together with Craig Readie of the BOA and Bob Scott who I must tell you though I think you already know it have done wonderful things for Manchester’s bid in the last year or so. [Applause]. When Bob comes up and grabs me warmly by the throat [Laughter], I have this instinct of what he is going to say to me and that instinct has never been wrong! Together with Craig Readie and Bob Scott, I pressed the case to the President of the IOC just a couple of weeks ago. No-one can be sure what lies in the minds of the members of the IOC when they vote to decide the location but because of what has already been done Manchester is now one of three hot favourites. Beijing and Sydney will make their pitch but nothing that can be done for Manchester will be left undone in the quest to bring the Olympics here at the start of the new millennium. [Applause].

    This bid and the great works that accompany it are just one sign that Manchester has kept all its flair. Much of the rest of the world may still be going into recession; we are coming out of the recession and we have the edge – low inflation, rising competitiveness. We need the Manchester touch for the great things which are pending. It was Manchester which took raw cotton from Smyrna, sold it to the fast bobbin men in Oldham and the power loom men in Preston. Then it sold cheap cotton cloth to the world. Manchester knew what needed be done then; it knows what must be done now. So does the Government. Together I hope. Perhaps in Manchester I shouldn’t say “together” but “united” [Applause] and to be strictly fair let me put it a slight different way: in this city [Applause] united we can do it. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Group for Europe – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Group for Europe on 22nd April 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Two years ago I said I wanted to put Britain at the heart of Europe. And the heart of Europe is where I still want us to be.

    It is now 20 years since we joined the European Community.

    Since then, a whole generation has grown up. A generation free of the legacy of the old animosities. A generation which takes for granted co-operation between the Member States.

    Yet in 1973 all you would take to the Continent was a limited amount of foreign currency and £25 sterling. Today, we go to France much as we might go to Yorkshire. Last year we made a trifling 24 million trips to Europe.

    It is no longer an oddity for British students to spend a year in France or to see a German student rowing in the boat-race for Cambridge. For the manager or the professional it is becoming as normal for a career to include two years in Mannheim as a posting to Manchester. Little England steps out. But as we have been stepping out for more than 20 years now we hardly notice that we do it.

    Economic benefits

    There is also the minor question of profit. We British are traders. Our trade with the rest of the Community has risen thirteen-fold. In 1973 we exported £800 million to Germany. Now it is over £15,000 million. We export as much to Germany as to the United States and Japan combined. That is the scale of our European self interest. Since we joined, our exports to our partners in the Community have grown 50% faster than have those of our old partners in EFTA. That amounts to £20 billion last year. That’s a lot of prosperity and a lot of jobs.

    Britain has looked at the world, understood that it must be competitive … and competes.

    And the fact that we do compete makes inward investors flock here. Two out of every five who come to the Community come to Britain. Now we export cars to Japan, television sets to Germany and computers to the world. We hear a great deal about the industries we’ve lost. I would like to hear more about the industries we have gained.

    Take an example I saw recently. A textile factory that has become the most modern in the world; a firm taking on and beating Far Eastern competitors is exporting two million garments every week, and is about to double its workforce: a factory in Northern Ireland.

    How had they succeeded? They had seized the European market, attracted investment and made it a success.

    That Northern Irish factory is emblematic. Investors like our welcome. They like our tax structure. They like our industrial relations. They know that our workforce is flexible and adaptable. And we have English, – English, the world language. We should do well with such strengths. But outside the Community? Doing our own tiny thing, splendidly adrift? It’s just not on. Outside Europe Britain can survive; inside we will thrive.

    Britain’s achievements

    We take from the Community. And we put into it. Europe needs Britain just as Britain needs Europe. We have just completed the biggest free trade area in the world. A British initiative, started by a British Prime Minister, driven by a British Commissioner, and brought to fruition under a British Prime Minister. A single market that makes full use of the Treaty of Rome as a charter for economic liberty. A single market that helps us capitalise on the things Britain does uniquely well – our financial services, our transport and aviation and our telecommunications companies.

    Europe is only one part of the world trading system. The prize, if we can successfully complete the GATT round is huge: 200 billion dollars of extra prosperity for our globe. The risks, if we fail, are equally immense. Our influence, together with our Northern partners, tilts the Community onto the side of success. Thirty years ago the economist, James Meade wrote a famous pamphlet. An outward-looking Europe was good, he said, an inward-looking Europe should make us flee to the hills. We are fighting and winning the battles he identified. Historically some of our partners are protectionist by instinct. But Britain with her outside links, American and Commonwealth, will always thrust Europe outwards.

    We have also led the way to bringing in our old EFTA partners and friends Austria, Norway, Sweden and Finland. They share our instincts as global free traders. Many of the traditions on which our Parliamentary democracy is based come from the Scandinavian part of our heritage. A rugged, independent-minded legislature can sometimes be uncomfortable. Believe me, it can. But it is a good and healthy thing. They share that with us.

    Like us, too, they will be net contributors. They will be watchful how the Community spends its citizens’ money.

    Only a cloud-borne idealist would deny the debits to our membership. We joined late. We didn’t make the rules. A lot of them didn’t suit us.

    There is a legend of ancient Rome to illustrate the British predicament. It tells how the Sibyl offered the Roman Senate 9 books containing the future of the republic. Shocked at the price, the senators refused to buy them. The Sibyl burned 3 books. She then offered the other 6 for the same price. The Senate still refused. She burned 3 more. Seriously rattled, the Senate hastily agreed to buy the last 3 books for the price of the original 9.

    Ted, you bought the books. We have read them; and thank goodness you did buy them.

    But of course, we keep bringing out new editions. That is what happens to successful books. We have reformed the Common Agricultural Policy after years of squabbling. At Edinburgh we put a ceiling on EC spending until the end of the Century. At Edinburgh too we reached out to the new member nations. The Scandinavians now; and in time the Central European nations – Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. We won agreement against all the odds that those old friends would join. Not tentatively or in the future conditional tense, but “join” meaning “join”. That was always Britain’s wish; and it will be fulfilled.

    Like Douglas Hurd, I know that the Community has become too intrusive in our national life. Where this is so we must correct it and the Maastricht Treaty provides a way of doing so. But some intrusion is necessary and is in our interests. For example, if we are to make the Single Market work, there has to be some body of common law. It is we, British, who have pressed hardest for a true common market – a slogan made flesh. If we are to have that, it needs to be enforced and someone must have the authority to do so. The Commission and the Court have that authority. For all its quirks and quiddities, when the Commission battles against vested interests and for competition, it is on our side.

    Maastricht

    Of course, there is too much regulation both in Brussels and Whitehall; and indeed too much done at Community level better done by individual nations. Maastricht is the focus of that concern.

    But let me tell you a story. A colleague at a constituency dinner asked everyone present to tell him what they didn’t like about Maastricht.

    Up went a jungle of hands. “Nobody else got a point? Everyone had their say?”

    “Yes”.

    “Well” he said “you have raised 35 different points against Maastricht. 33 of them date back to the Treaty of Rome or the Single European Act. And 2 of them are valid complaints against the Treaty of Maastricht.”

    Maastricht has been used as the scapegoat for the varied and nameless fears about Europe, most of them wholly unrelated to the Treaty.

    I have never pretended that Maastricht is perfect, but, warts and all, Maastricht makes Europe better.

    Take “subsidiarity”, which I call “national precedence”. Subsidiarity enshrines in EC Law the principle that the Community should not be permitted to do what Member States can do better themselves.

    But there are areas – many areas where the Community countries do need to work together. The member states of the EC face an ocean of problems beyond the capacity of any of us to solve alone: migration; environmental degradation; nuclear proliferation; international crime and especially drugs; political instability to our East; terrorism; and protectionism. I do not see our Nation as a cog in some centralised superstate. Maastricht does not solve all problems but it draws all of us together for the shared, common sense purpose of trying to solve them.

    Of course, the Brussels centralisers haven’t all gone away. But they are now running against the tide. A tide that will flow ever more strongly in the enlarged Community we ensured at Edinburgh. The idea of a centralised Europe had resonance in a Community of the 6. But for 12, soon 16 and eventually 20 plus nations it is a grandiose doodle. It is not what the people of Europe want. We Conservatives, must have the confidence and the sharp-edged determination to stay in the heart of the European debate to win a Community of free, independent members. The nations must be free-standing – a colonnade, not a set of bars.

    To opt out of that struggle would deny 20 years of British effort and achievement. How does the Community work? Europe is a small sea of perpetual negotiation. It shapes its future and its laws by alliances between governments and ministers. Many who fear and oppose Europe are like the fat boy in “Pickwick”. They want to make your flesh creep. They think we are always going to lose the argument in Europe. That is defeatist and wrong. We learnt to swim in that sea long ago.

    The Single Market was a British idea; breaking open state monopolies was a British idea. CAP reform and enlargement have been British goals. If we tried to huddle back into some private yesterday we wouldn’t have any alliances we could make. Others would make the rules. And they’d impose the rules on us. That’s what our EFTA partners have learned. It’s one reason why they are queuing to join.

    I know there are those who have many objections to the Community. But I notice they offer no satisfactory alternative. What are the theoretical options? There are three:

    – to leave altogether. Put that bluntly, they shrink away from that choice;

    – to form some kind of association with an American free trade area. That is a sugar coated turnip and the economic hole that leaving Europe would open up cannot be filled with turnips;

    – third, to stick at “a Common market and no more”. That’s such a narrow, unexalted vision. Britain has long argued for a more coherent foreign policy for the Twelve. Because it makes sense for us to work together as we did in providing safe havens for the Kurds of Northern Iraq.

    So what really moves the opponents of Britain’s full participation in the EC? As much as anything it is frustration. Frustration that we are no longer a world power. Frustration that nowhere is the nation state fully sovereign, free to conduct its policies without concerting with ruddy foreigners. There is frustration that some of the fixed and treasured aspects of our national life are subject to seemingly relentless change. They practice a sort of phantom grandeur, a clanking of unusable suits of armour.

    I understand these feelings but I cannot share them. The world has moved on. Britain has to take its rightful place in it. Though no longer a global power we still have global interests and we need to defend them with determination but also with subtlety. We cannot afford to subject ourselves to the despotism of nostalgia. We need to use cleverness and shared strength. We must operate a network of little threads to make most use of the influence we do have. And the European Community is a handful of threads for the pursuit of our domestic and foreign interests.

    We hear a lot about principled opposition to Europe. Let’s not forget that there is a great deal of principled support too. Looking around, I see a great many who have been principled supporters of our place in Europe for as long as I can remember.

    The sly argument that to be a principled supporter of Europe is somehow to put Britain’s interests second needs dismissing for the nonsense it is. It’s precisely because we put Britain’s interests first that we need to be in there shaping the new Europe. A new Europe that is larger, more open and less intrusive. That’s not throwing away history, that’s not knocking down traditions. We are digging straight ditches and putting layers of bricks into them – what builders call a foundation.

    A wider Europe

    Those who say Europe is only an economic entity, a tower of brass, forget one small gift to our age: two generations of peace.

    The peace we have had in the West was not reached by the turn of a card. The ancient hatreds were composed and the ancient enemies conciliated with fearful singularity of purpose.

    Let’s not forget, that when we joined the Community, Spain Portugal and Greece were still governed by men in sunglasses and epaulettes. The dictators were booted out. Stability and democracy have been locked in – by membership of the Community.

    The tragedy in Bosnia on our borders is a terrible reminder of the loss of that blessing we here take too much for granted. It is an irony that many who protest most loudly that ‘Britain only joined a common market’ are the first to complain that the EC has not secured a political or military settlement to the conflict in Bosnia.

    Our long term purpose must be the whole continent of Europe with free democracies and without trade barriers. We are backing freer trade with more aid. A great swelling tide of humanitarian and technical aid flows to Russia and central Europe. The EC is by far the largest donor. £5 billion worth over the last three years. £5 billion to support democracy, and free market reform. Of course, we want it wisely spent. And who bangs on the most to insist upon that? Britain does.

    And it isn’t all governments, the big battalions who are helping. It is the small platoons too – volunteers and private benefactors, like those I was able to thank at Number 10 recently for their work in setting up the 1990s equivalent of Rhodes scholarships for young people from central and Eastern Europe.

    That is the best of Britain and it is part of our distinctive and unique contribution to Europe. Distinctive and unique as Britain will remain in Europe. Fifty years from now Britain will still be the country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers and – as George Orwell said – “old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist” and if we get our way – Shakespeare still read even in school. Britain will survive unamendable in all essentials.

    Surely we trust our own integrity as a people quite enough to fear nothing in Europe. We are the British, a people freely living inside a Europe which is glad to see us and wants us. After 20 years we have come of age in Europe. One Conservative leader put us there. This Conservative leader means us to thrive there. So let’s get on with it.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy (II) – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 22nd April 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the recession was over and the recovery started].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The economic indicators are looking a lot brighter. We’ve had a whole range of figures that were rather better than many forecasters imagined. I am very pleased to see that but I think we must wait until we see GDP figures in due course.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if this was just a modest rebound after a large recession].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it is a pretty remarkable “modest rebound” as you put it, when you see almost every indicator moving in the same direction and doing so quite sharply. Normally, when one emerges from a recession it tends to be rather more jagged and rather more uncertain so I think the trend is undoubtedly in the right direction.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if unemployment falling was just a one off].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will have to wait and see, won’t we? It is certainly very welcome to see for the last two months that unemployment has fallen and of course three months ago, if you remember, the unemployment rise was actually rather small so it is three months where the unemployment figures have been better than people imagined.

    The level of unemployment is still far too high and we need to get it down. That is why we said some time ago that need a base of low inflation from which we can have an expanding, growing economy. That is the only way to have secure jobs.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the high PSBR].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wonder what you or most other people would have said to me if I had actually cut public expenditure in the midst of the recession? I think many people would have thought that would have been a rather strange way to deal with it.

    A large part of the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement is cyclical. It is a collapse of income during the recession: no house sales – no stamp duty; no high street sales – far less value added tax; fewer people in work – a loss of income tax. As that begins to correct itself, a large part of the deficit will itself disappear. There will be more. We shall need some growth. We shall need to look very carefully at public expenditure.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy (I) – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 22nd April 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the recession was over].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a great deal more confidence among business, I think it is they who by their performance will show whether the recovery is with us. There is no doubt they are very confident indeed now and many of the indicators over recent weeks have been very positive, so that is very satisfactory.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he wasn’t prepared to say that the recession was over].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When the recession is over everyone will see that self-evidently. What I think one can see is happening, there is a much greater degree of confidence, exports are rising, one has seen with car sales and a whole range of other indicators that they are getting a good deal better. I want to see those indicators go on getting better, that has been happening in recent weeks, it is very welcome news.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how people knew that the recovery wouldn’t lead to Lawson type boom].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is exactly the right question that people should have in their minds and exactly the right concern that I have in my mind. We said two years ago that there was no short cut out of the difficulties we faced. I said that it would be a difficult period, we had to get inflation down, when we had got inflation down – and I knew it would be difficult, knew it would be unpopular – then we would begin to see recovery.

    We have got inflation down, we are beginning now to see the recovery, I think that is self-evident from what businesses themselves are saying. I have not lost my concern about inflation, I had it two years ago, I have it now, I want to make sure this is a long term sustainable recovery, not a short term boom.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the recovery was a candy-floss recovery with no recovery in manufacturing].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There has been a great degree of retraining but let us look at more substantive matters of what is actually happening. You refer to a candy-floss economy. The reality is the fact that our exports, a key element in continuing economic recovery, are now penetrating very deeply into both European and markets way beyond Europe. That export growth is at record levels, it is continuing, and that shows several things, that British firms are manufacturing, that they are competitive, that they are prepared to look for markets abroad and that they are successfully doing so. All that is very welcome. The unemployment drop is very welcome, I am delighted about that, most for the unemployed who have found jobs and for their families, but the level is still too high, we need to see a much wider manufacturing base, I shall be talking about that in the next few days and I wish to see that we have the right circumstances to engender confidence so that business can produce the growth we need. Governments cannot do it, they can set the framework, then business can do it, that is what we are seeking to do.