Author: admin

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Walpole Committee Conference – 3 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Walpole Committee Conference, held on Wednesday 3rd March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Lord Chairman, thank you very much indeed. I must say I can’t think of anywhere more splendid to start the day and I congratulate you on choosing this magnificent venue for today’s occasion.

    It does seem to me in a number of ways to be a very appropriate venue when one considers what you’re doing. The Royal Society, perhaps I think for something over 200 years has represented the very best of British creativity, represented the very best of British quality and that as I understand it is precisely the objective that you have set yourselves and your Committee and of course it was the Royal Society in 1851 that organised the Great Exhibition. But what was essentially the purpose of the Great Exhibition. It was to show the world the excellence of the products that we had in Britain and in what then we knew as the British Empire. So in every sense it’s an appropriate place for you to meet and I think if I may say it’s an appropriate time for this particular Committee to be formed. I hope you won’t consider it too inappropriate that you’ve invited me to be your first and brief, you may be pleased know, first and brief speaker at this Conference.

    Your Committee’s named after Britain’s first Prime Minister. It is perhaps a first I think for the private sector to get together in quite this fashion in order to seek quite the promotional attributes that you have set yourself. Walpole of course is an interesting person to be the title of your Committee. You may not perhaps know that, but in the Cabinet Room, immediately behind my chair, sits a large portrait of Sir Robert Walpole, the first occupant of Downing Street. I must confess occasionally seeing him sitting there surveying what we do and no doubt noting all that we say, one does occasionally wonder what he might think about the changes in politics in the couple of hundred years and heaven alone knows what he would have made of Prime Minister’s Questions. He may perhaps be grateful that in his day they didn’t exist.

    But it is a pleasure to be here and I say that not simply as a matter of routine, I say that because of the central purpose of the Walpole Committee. It is a purpose to which I profoundly subscribe, that British products are among the best in the world and can compete with the best in the world. Not only can compete, the fact of the matter is we have no choice but to make sure they compete and compete successfully in what is going to be the most competitive decade for business that any of us have ever seen.

    So that attitude that we can compete and we must compete, it is undoubtedly an attitude that each and every British firm and each and every British worker will need to take to heart if they are to play their own particular part in securing Britain’s economic recovery. Producing quality is not an optional extra in the 1990s. It is absolutely central to our success and the sooner that is sunk deep into the sub-conscious of everybody involved with British industry and British politics the better it will be for all of us. So there are a raft of reasons why I particularly welcome the foundation of this particular Committee. It is a very welcome recognition, a timely recognition, that we can’t rely on the excellence of British products to speak for themselves. We need to speak for them, we need to stress how good they are, we should miss no opportunity to do so. We now face an intensity of competition from abroad, far greater than anything we’ve experienced before. There was a time when we could look round at the Commonwealth, the Empire, other countries and we’d see very soft markets for British exports. Don’t believe for a second that those markets exist in the same fashion these days. Countries to which we would readily sell, now manufacture themselves and challenge our markets. Right the way across the Pacific rim there are now extremely competitive manufacturers that didn’t exist just a few years ago. The acute competitive dilemmas forced by the growth of Japan’s trade in the last 20 years and the almost certain growth of China’s influence in manufacturing in the world in the next 20 years are just an indication of the fact that we cannot take export markets for granted and for many British firms success at home simply will not be possible if they ignore the competition from abroad.

    There is a problem that we have seen time and time again as we have gone through an economic downturn. We have an economic downturn, British firms see a depressed domestic market, they sell abroad and they sell abroad quite successfully. We move back into the upturn and on too many occasions too many firms have then gone back to the domestic easy British market and ignored the possibilities abroad. Now one of our central objectives as we move out of this recession is to make sure that on this occasion we do not lose the impetus to export simply because the British domestic market revives. We need both, we need to supply the domestic market, not least as import substitution but also for companies individual profitability, but we also need to continue our penetration of export markets. With interest rates at their present level, with inflation at their present level, with a hugely competitive exchange rate we have a remarkable opportunity to penetrate deep into world markets in a way we have not seen for very many years. Our job collectively, yours, mine, is to make sure that we actually take the advantage that is there and penetrate in those markets and keep those markets and we frankly will not do so nor will we deserve to do so unless we produce the quality products that increasingly people demand around the world. We have them, we should trumpet the fact that we have them and we should go on exporting.

    The second reason perhaps for welcoming the launch of this Committee is because you’ve pulled together in it a very remarkable and powerful group representing the best of Britain. The list of your members, the members of the Walpole Committee, makes very impressive reading indeed. There are names representing a broad cross-section of British industry. Representing the quality of British goods and services. I think therefore that what you have is a very remarkable example of a private industry initiative. I’ve no wish in saying that to excuse Government from its responsibility to industry but like you I believe, I recognise that nothing the Government can do, however benevolent, however well-intentioned, can match the potential of the whole of private industry working together. It is therefore vital you do work together and I hope this Committee will be a catalyst to extend the work that you have commenced.

    But there is I think perhaps, a third and even more important reason why I welcome the launch of the Walpole Committee. It’s because, it is I believe, potentially a very important counter to that very curious British disease of talking down our own prospects and talking down our own country. I’ve said it before and I will go on saying it. I am constantly amazed at how many pessimists attempt to paint a picture of a nation in decline when it is an utterly false and unrealistic picture. Messages of gloom by themselves don’t matter. But when those messages of gloom knock Britain and then damage our prospects as a trading nation, then they do matter and that is a matter of great importance to me and a matter of great importance to British industry and the fact of the matter is, that what the pessimists say is not true and ought not to go unchallenged. We shouldn’t accept it, we should not allow the British instinct for self-deprecation to undermine our confidence, undermine our prospects, when it’s utterly clear that our success depends at least in part, in building up our own confidence and our own self-confidence. It is utterly the wrong thing to do in the interests of British industry and commerce.

    Though I believe your Committee will play an important role in seeking to promote the best of Britain. I hope you will be aggressive in doing that. Be gentlemanly by all means, but not too gentlemanly. Don’t miss the opportunity to remind people when we’re the best, when our products are the best. No other country, no other salesmen, no other groups in other nations will neglect the opportunity to push their country’s interests time after time after time and neither should we. Perhaps we played at being gentlemen in industry and commerce perhaps a little too long. We need to join the players and we need to make sure that we take every opportunity to promote our own interests fairly, not unfairly, not through unfair subsidies, but fairly in terms of international trade. I certainly will do that. I certainly propose to follow the pilot of taking businessmen abroad with me when I visit appropriate countries in the hope that it will help to open doors to contracts and opportunities for British business and I hope you will be equally aggressive in selling the best of Britain abroad as well.

    We have a lot to sell. Don’t let anyone pretend otherwise for a second. We can promote the fact for example that manufacturing productivity last year grew by almost 6 per cent amongst the fastest in Europe. We can promote the fact that exports are now at a record level and have been rising for some months. We can promote the fact that our inflation rate is at its lowest level since 1967, our interest rates at their lowest level since 1977 and equally important our interest rate level is now the lowest in the European Community where we see so many of our markets and so much of our competition.

    Those are opportunities to be taken. I know that this morning I don’t need to preach to you about the success of Britain. You’re here to contribute to that success. Amongst your membership are a large number of success stories. It’s invidious always to single out some. But I think if I may be forgiven for doing so, it does tend to illustrate how wrong the pessimists are. Let me take two or three examples, though I could have stretched that list far further and those I don’t mention I hope will forgive me over time, if not perhaps immediately.

    – The Financial Times has increased its circulation in the last five years by 67 per cent and since printing began in Japan two years ago sales there have grown by 135 per cent;

    – William Grant continues to expand in their export markets and they’ve now made Glenfiddich famous worldwide, at home, my home to, as a symbol of quality and if I dare say so, of enjoyment from time to time as well;

    – Dawson International, owners of Pringle and Ballantynes, are competing and succeeding in Germany and in Japan.

    And we really should recognise that increasingly we are penetrating those German and Japanese markets. It isn’t a one way trading arrangement that we have with those countries. We are selling for example, large numbers of cars now to Japan. When it wasn’t all that many years ago when all we saw when we looked at the car industry was a wreckage of subsidy and industrial disruption. Now we have a growing car industry increasingly exporting, soon to be a net exporter as an industry as a whole and now exporting into Japan.

    Now I could stretch those examples across very wide areas of British industry and endeavour and we need to fix those success stories in our national psyche if we are to maximise our opportunities of success in the future. Because what those examples illustrate is that British goods are capable of beating the best in the world. Not just being as good as them, but of beating them. They illustrate the importance to British firms of style, quality and innovation and that undoubtedly is the way ahead for British business.

    But there are other things that we certainly need to do as well. For far too long we have been the innovators and other people have then developed and produced the product of that particular innovation. We do need to accelerate the growing marriage between British brains and British production. There are a whole range of innovations that in the 1990s can turn us from being a great trading nation into a greater trading nation.

    And I return, if I may in conclusion, to a theme I touched on just a few moments ago. These changes, these opportunities, this effort, this promotion, is not an optional extra. We cannot sit out this decade letting other people become more competitive, more forceful, more thrusting and pretend that we don’t have to do the same thing, we do. There will be more change in this decade in industry and commerce and perhaps every other part of our life than we have seen in any peacetime decade in this century. The winners will be the people who perceive that first and who act upon that perception. That I believe is what this Committee is doing. It has my wholehearted support and I shall watch with the most enormous interest how you get on in future. If I can help I will, if you wish to help do what you’re promising to do and it will be of the most enormous benefit.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Polish Prime Minister – 3 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Polish Prime Minister, Mrs Hanna Suchocka, held in London on Wednesday 3rd March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good afternoon! I have been delighted today to welcome the Prime Minister to Downing Street. It was not the first time we have met but we were able to carry our discussions a good deal further both bilaterally and in terms of Poland’s relationship with the European Community.
    We had the opportunity this morning to look at a whole range of issues. I was delighted at the outcome of the Edinburgh Summit which agreed for the first time that in due course Poland will become a full member of the European Community. We discussed this morning some of the ways towards achieving that. The Prime Minister briefed me on the economic programme and I was able to congratulate her on her success in getting an extremely difficult budget through Parliament. I was also able to confirm this morning that we will be happy to continue our assistance to Poland through the Know-How Fund and through other areas of bilateral assistance. I was also able to confirm that we were content to transfer the money that was available to the Polish Stabilisation Fund to go directly to help the Polish banking system become established and that was an agreement we made this morning. I am happy to confirm it and I hope it will be satisfactory and assist the Polish banks firstly to establish themselves securely and secondly to prepare for private ownership in the future. This was a continuing illustration of an ever-growing and closer relationship with Poland. I look forward to our trade relationship continuing to grow. It has grown quite substantially. The Prime Minister will be addressing the CBI tomorrow and I have no doubt she will have investment and the growth of trade very high on her agenda for that occasion. She is a very welcome guest and I am delighted to invite her to say a few words to you.

    MRS. SUCHOCKA:

    Thank you, ladies and gentlemen! I would like to confirm the words that have been spoken by Prime Minister Major. The most important topic that we have discussed during the meeting this morning is the change to eventually Poland’s full membership of the EC as well as bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and the Polish Republic. We have also spoken about the utilisation of the Stabilisation Fund for the restructuring of the Polish banking system. In this regard, we have received the confirmation of Prime Minister Major’s Government that these funds can be used for the purpose.

    Another topic that has been raised pertained to the access of Polish products to western markets. One of the conditions for that was the passing of the Polish budget. The budget has now been passed and we would very much count on the United Kingdom in moving Poland from a high-risk group in terms of credits for exports to a risk group that is more favourable. This would definitely be very conducive to the development of foreign investment in Poland. These talks pertaining to trade relations are very important for my country. I would also like to recall, using this opportunity, that Poland is the UK’s largest trade partner in central and eastern Europe.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, was there talk about the calendar and specific conditions that Poland should meet on its way to becoming an EC member and will you be still promoting Poland during the Copenhagen meeting in June?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The answer to the second question is undoubtedly yes. We have made no secret for some time that we look forward to the day when Poland can become a full member of the European Community. That is why we promoted that particular course at Edinburgh, that is why we are keen to enhance the existing relationship between Poland and the Community, why we believe that there need to be a number of steps between now and full membership.

    Full membership is a few years away because there is a great deal of development necessary for the Polish economy in the interests of Poland because Poland will be subjected to the full rigour and force of competition in the Community once she becomes a member.

    The answer is clear: Yes, we want Poland to become a member; yes, we wish to assist Poland to become a member; and we hope we can take progressive steps towards that during the rest of this decade.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a matter that really needs to be discussed with the whole of the European Community and I think that is being discussed in the Community. It is not a matter that is settled yet. The problem does not especially lie in the United Kingdom, as you know.

    QUESTION:

    [In Polish, but regarding credit guarantees].

    MRS. SUCHOCKA:

    Yes, we have discussed that. A final answer can come after completion of negotiations with the London Club and only upon the conclusion of those negotiations can we have a full response to the question of medium- and long-term credits.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Major, you assert that Poland is not really ready to be exposed to the rigours of the free market. On the other hand, I understand Polish diplomacy complains about not being given free access of their own goods to western markets. Isn’t this a bit contradictory?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it really is contradictory when you look across the whole of the economic sector but I have some sympathy with the demand that the whole of Europe should open its markets more and the Prime Minister knows that is my view.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, could you expand on your view that pessimists are running down Britain, say who they are and respond to the Opposition who say it is about time you got in touch with what was going on in the real world where unemployment is [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set all this out this morning in a speech. There is nothing to add to that. It is perfectly clear in the speech.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 2 March 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

     

    Catering

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent on catering at 10 Downing Street and Chequers in 1991-92 and 1992-93 to date.

    The Prime Minister : The information is not available in the form requested. The cost of official hospitality met by my office was £40,976 in 1991-92 and is £25,835 in 1992-93 to date.

     

    Higher and Further Education

    Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Prime Minister what has been the effect on the estimates for (a) the Department for Education and (b) the Welsh Office as a result of functional changes in higher and further education.

    The Prime Minister : The supply estimates for 1993-94, due to be published on 9 March, for the Department for Education’s higher and further education vote, class X, vote 2, will show provision totalling £2,806,458,000 for grant-in-aid to the Higher Education Funding Council (England) which, from 1 April 1993, will be responsible for the distribution of grants to all publicly funded higher education institutions in England. This will replace provision formerly shown separately in the estimates for expenditure on universities in Great Britain distributed by the Universities Funding Council; for the former polytechnics and colleges of higher education in England distributed by Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council; for the Open university; for the Royal College of Art; and for Cranfield institute of technology. The 1993-94 estimates, class X, votes 2 and 3, will show provision totalling £2,705,411,000 for grant- in-aid to the Further Education Funding Council in England which from 1 April will be responsible for distributing grant to further education establishments and sixth form colleges in England currently under local authority control. Similarly, the relevant supply estimate for the Welsh Office, class XV, vote 5, will show grant-in-aid provision for further and higher education institutions in Wales to be distributed by the Further Education Council in Wales–£143,846,000–and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales–£178,975,000–including in the latter case provision for universities in Wales which in 1992-93 are supported by the Universities Funding Council. The supply estimates for 1993-94 are subject to parliamentary approval in due course.

  • PMQT – 2 March 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 2nd March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Oppenheim : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

    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. Oppenheim : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more power that we can extend to individuals by devolving authority and decision making in our schools and the national health service, the better? Is not the best way to give individuals more responsibility and more control over their lives by reducing the power of the state? Is it the case that, on this crucial test, those who belatedly speak the language of conservatism but still think like socialists, such as the Leader of the Opposition, fail dismally?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his description. We believe in giving individuals more choice and more power. I fear that that is not the policy of the Labour party. Labour Members want less choice and more government, rather than more choice and less power for government.

    Mr. John Smith : In that case, can the Prime Minister tell us why he is opposed to a freedom of information Act?

    The Prime Minister : Because we are extending freedom of information in practical ways–unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who would not give information to parents about schools or to users of the health service about hospitals. That is the sort of information which people in the country want, not the sort of information that the right hon. and learned Gentleman concerns himself about.

    Mr. John Smith : If the Prime Minister is genuinely committed to giving information and to open government, can I give him a simple test? How many billions of pounds were lost in the currency dealings in the fiasco of Black Wednesday?

    The Prime Minister : As a former shadow Chancellor, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know that no one knows what the figures will be until those things are unwound, he should not be sitting where he is.

    Mr. John Smith : Is not it abundantly clear that the Prime Minister either does not know how many billions of pounds were lost or is unwilling to tell us? Does not he understand that there is a crucial difference between the national interest and covering up the incompetence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

    The Prime Minister : We are dealing with the national interest day after day, with no assistance whatever from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

    Rev. Ian Paisley : Could the Prime Minister give to the greater number of people in Northern Ireland an assurance that the envoy from President Clinton to which he has agreed will not hold talks with the IRA, Sinn Fein or any other terrorist organisation?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman had better wait and see what announcement is made about the fact finder who I believe may come from the United States to Northern Ireland. Many distinguished people from the United States have been there in the past. Many of them have gone back with great enthusiasm for the changes that they have found in Northern Ireland and the great desire among the people of Northern Ireland for a lasting peace.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Pike : After 14 years of Tory government, the unemployed and low paid in my constituency are sick of hearing the Prime Minister saying why we cannot have the social chapter in Britain. Can he tell the people of Britain why France, Germany and all the other countries in Europe can have the social chapter but Britain cannot? Are we a second-class Britain as a result of 14 years of Tory rule?

    The Prime Minister : It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not know his own constituency better, for he would know that unemployment there has fallen 16 per cent. since 1987. He may also have noticed the trend in unemployment in France and Germany.

    Mr. Alan Howarth : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the citizen’s charter, which very properly enhances the rights of the citizen, should be complemented by a renewed emphasis on the obligations of the citizen, so that we foster and strengthen mutual responsibility in our society? Will he therefore look systematically to identify and eliminate obstacles that at present discourage voluntary work and charitable activity, including aspects of eligibility for both unemployment benefit and invalidity benefit as well as aspects of the council tax and VAT regimes?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we have done a great deal to improve the quantity and quality of voluntary work in this country. I am happy to examine any practical suggestions to improve it even further.

     

    Q3. Mr. Nigel Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Nigel Jones : May I offer the Prime Minister the chance to welcome Chelsea’s long-awaited victory last night after a change of manager? Does he now understand why millions of unemployed people in Britain would welcome a change of manager of the economy?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman may have spent some time rehearsing that. It was not time well spent. Perhaps he needs a training course.

    Mr. Nigel Evans : Has my right hon. Friend had time to see the recent “Small Business Bulletin” from Barclays bank, which shows that there was a 19 per cent. increase in the number of small businesses in Britain in the last quarter of 1992 as compared with the last quarter of 1991? This is good news– [Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear it, but it is good news. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it shows the resilience of the small business sector in Britain? When he next has a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he encourage him to introduce on 16 March a small business- friendly Budget which will help our small businesses?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about the importance of the small business sector both to the economy generally and in terms of job creation. I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

     

    Q4. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Skinner : Does not the Prime Minister realise that after 14 years he stands condemned about the seedy state of Britain today? Pensioners have a job to live ; they do not have two ha’pennies to rub together. The banks rip off customers. The bosses steal the pension funds. Ministers have their debts paid by the taxpayer. Is not that the reason why the British people understand him less and condemn him more?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman must have been taking lessons from the Liberal spokesman.

     

    Q5. Mr. Duncan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Duncan : Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective weapons in the armoury against crime is the right to refer to the Court of Appeal any sentence that may be considered too lenient? Does he also agree that those who voted against that in the House, including the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), have very little right to posture about crime and even less right to parade their self-righteousness up and down the country?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes his own point in his own way. The public rightly expect the sentence to fit the crime. The power for the Attorney-General to refer over-lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal is an important weapon in the fight against crime and one which I believe will have the warm support of people right across the country. I hope that the hon. Member for Sedgefield will change his mind. At the moment, his voting record on crime is a worse record than that of an old lag.

    Mr. Redmond : Does the Prime Minister intend to keep his election promises?

    The Prime Minister : All Governments intend to keep their election promises.

     

    Q7. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Paice : Is not it clear that many of the young people who are committing crimes are not unemployed, because they should still be at school? In that regard, may we have a vigorous campaign against truancy, to improve education and to reduce crime?

    The Prime Minister : I believe that it is necessary to do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it perfectly clear that we need to cut down on truancy and if we are successful in doing that, we are likely to cut down on juvenile crime. That is why in future, against the opposition Labour Members, we propose to include information on truancy rates when we publish how schools are performing. It is vital information for parents and vital information against crime and it would be helpful if the Opposition would support us in that policy.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice : Does the Prime Minister agree that the revelation that the Director General of the BBC has been avoiding tax on a massive scale leaves a very nasty taste in the month? Does he further agree that John Birt should pay back to the Inland Revenue all the tax avoided in his period as deputy director general?

    The Prime Minister : Although I am familiar with the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is a matter for the Director General of the BBC and the Inland Revenue.

     

    Q8. Mr. Shepherd : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Colin Shepherd : Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity over the weekend to reflect on the revealing remarks of Professor Halsey on the way in which the schools were hijacked in the 1960s and 1970s by the trendy lefties? Is not it clear that now that those pupils who had been hijacked are parents, they are unable to give their families the moral base to know what is right and wrong today? Will he not be deflected from his path?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I believe that Professor Halsey now speaks for the views of parents, whereas he certainly did not in the 1960s. The view of the overwhelming number of parents is that the fashionable theories of the 1960s did immense damage to the quality of education in this country.

     

    Q9. Mr. Soley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 March.

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

    Mr. Soley : Can the Prime Minister tell me whether it is his policy to achieve full employment?

    The Prime Minister : Every Prime Minister wishes to achieve full employment.

    Dr. Liam Fox : Does my right hon. Friend agree that if discipline is not instilled at home it cannot be reinforced in schools and then enforced in society? Do not the people of this country have a right to expect the courts to be tough on parents who refuse to apply discipline to their children?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. It is necessary to take firm action with that relatively small number of young people who are persistent offenders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have something to say about that shortly.

    Miss Lestor : Will the Prime Minister take time today to visit one of the nursery schools in my constituency, or in some other constituency, to remind himself that it is 21 years since a previous Tory Government gave a commitment to nursery education for all four-year-olds? Does he agree that that promise, far from being fulfilled, is now rapidly being forgotten? If he is really concerned about family life in this country, he will ensure that deprivation and other family difficulties are identified by having children under expert eyes at a very early age? Does he agree that, by his meanness in nursery education, he is depriving hundreds of young children of educational opportunities and of care and attention?

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Lady takes a great interest in this matter. That being the case, she will know that there are more rising fives–four-year-olds–going to school in this country than in any other European country. We have a different pattern of provision, by which our youngsters are brought into school earlier. Notwithstanding that fact, there has been a significant increase in nursery provision.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 1 March 1993

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Mr. Li Ka Shing

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the formal or contractual arrangements which exist between (a) Mr. Li Ka Shing and (b) Norinco and United Kingdom Government agencies or bodies, including those in Hong Kong.

    The Prime Minister : As far as I am aware, none.

     

    Prerogative Powers

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions on which Ministers have exercised prerogative powers in the last 18 months; and how this was reported to Parliament in each case.

    The Prime Minister : In the main, specific functions are conferred on Ministers by Act of Parliament. Statute now covers much of the ground which in earlier times was covered by prerogative powers. However, the common law still recognises some prerogative powers as residing in the Crown and some of these are, by convention, exercisable by Ministers. Examples of areas where the prerogative still plays a part are foreign affairs, defence and the regulation of the civil service. Particular examples of the exercise of prerogative power are the issue of a passport or the grant of a pardon or reprieve under the prerogative of mercy. It is for individual Ministers to decide on a particular occasion whether and how to report to Parliament on the exercise of prerogative powers. The relationship between statutory powers and prerogative powers can be very complex and it would be impracticable, and would lead to disproportionate cost, to list all the occasions when action was taken under the prerogative.

     

    Minority Languages

    Mr. William Ross : To ask the Prime Minister which department is responsible for the work and advice leading up to the adoption of the European charter for regional or minority languages by the Committee of Minorities.

    The Prime Minister : The Welsh Office took the lead in the discussions on the text of the charter, but consulted all other Departments with an interest.

     

    Secure Units

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers and Departments are responsible for (a) policy in regard to the provision of secure places for young people in England and Wales and (b) providing such places and the relevant finances.

    The Prime Minister : Policy on the provision of secure accommodation in England and Wales, and the allocation of capital grants for such projects, are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Wales respectively.

    Local authorities are responsible for providing secure accommodation and for meeting the running costs.

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister when the secure places for young people announced in 1991 will be available.

    The Prime Minister : The provision of secure accommodation is the responsibility of local authorities. The Government remain committed to their target of abolishing the practice of remanding juveniles to prison by 1995-96 and will provide the necessary capital resources to achieve this.

     

    St. David’s Day

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make St. David’s Day a bank holiday in Wales.

    The Prime Minister : We have no plans to make St. David’s Day a bank holiday in Wales.

     

    Attorney-General

    Mr. George Robertson : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the oral statement by the Attorney-General of 22 February, Official Report, column 736, whether the Attorney-General attended the meeting of the Cabinet on Thursday 11 February.

    The Prime Minister : The Attorney-General did not attend the meeting of the Cabinet on Thursday 11 February.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Principals and Chairs of Governing Bodies – 1 March 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Principals and Chairs of Governing Bodies, made on 1st March 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nearly two years ago I launched the White Paper “Education and Training for the 21st Century”. I launched it myself because I passionately believe we must open up wider and better opportunities for young people and adults.

    A key part of that reform has been the establishment of the new further education sector. It comes into effect next month. From that time, FE colleges will be cut loose from control by local authorities, and you will gain a new freedom. Freedom to plan courses with much more certainty that the necessary funds will be available. Freedom to expand to meet student demand. Freedom to respond to the needs of local employers. Freedom to manage your own finances and your own buildings.

    We didn’t make this change for ideological reasons. We made it for the strictly practical reason that we want more and better further education.

    We want all young people to develop to the best of their ability. We want to give adults the option of a “second chance”. We want to ensure that British business and industry has people with the right skills. In the global market place, we need a world class workforce. That must start with education.

    The priority we give to further education is reflected in our public expenditure plans. They provide for an unprecedented 25 % increase in student numbers over the next three years. That increased number of students will be taking an improved range of qualifications: the new General National Vocational Qualifications will stand alongside equally esteemed A levels and National Vocational Qualifications.

    The Government’s commitment is reflected in the National Education and Training Targets. And in John Patten’s proposal for a Charter for the further education sector.

    But, of course, none of this happens without people. In particular, without you. I would like to welcome everyone here tonight, especially you, nearly 500 college principals; the chairmen of governors – representing the wealth of local expertise freely brought to bear in each college governing body; and of course Bob Gunn, Bill Stubbs and all the other members and officers of the Further Education Funding Council.

    Over two million students – full and part time – are educated in your colleges. You have a key role to play. You face new responsibilities as well as new freedoms. I give you my very best wishes for the future.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Local Government Conference – 27 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference, held in London on Saturday 27th February 1993.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Two years ago, at this Conference, I spoke about my roots in Lambeth. It was where I learned how politics shapes people’s lives. That same local government learning curve is followed with benefit by many in our Party – like those who sat in this hall two years ago and now sit in Parliament. They have brought with them the experience of local government: the best experience it is possible to have.

    One thing local government taught me was – don’t always listen to the experts. Listen to the people. It was a lesson I relearned at the General Election. All the experts said we would lose – but we won. And won by doing what the wise men said we shouldn’t do.

    And again, on May 6th, whatever the wise men say, we’re going to see more Conservative Councils and more Conservative councillors. And we’ll do so because Conservative Councils Cost You Less and Serve You Better. And Labour and Liberal Councils cost you more – and serve you right.

    Unemployment

    In a moment I want to turn to the future of local government. But first let me deal with one of the issues that most concern people at present – the need for jobs.

    Every politician cares about unemployment. It’s the trivial politics of simple abuse to suggest otherwise. We all want to see more permanent jobs. But the worst thing any of us can do is to pretend there is some quick fix solution. To kid ourselves and mislead others that with some as yet undiscovered potion there’d be jobs for all.

    As the Government, it is our duty to set out the plain truth. So let me do so. But, because it is relevant, let me first put it in context. Unemployment is not just a problem in this country. It is nearly worldwide. Does anyone think the Spanish government want unemployment at nearly 20 per cent? That France wants three million without jobs? That the [indistinct] government are happy that one in six of their population are unemployed? From Canada to Australia, from the USA to France, from Germany to the UK, unemployment has worsened seriously in every country. In recent days, as Leyland-Daf collapsed in Holland with job losses in the United Kingdom, Volkswagen in Germany cut 36,000 jobs, Boeing 28,000 in the US and Nissan and NTT in Japan announced they would shed 35,000 jobs.

    When pessimists knock Britain and damage our prospects, I hope you will answer back. Set out the facts that show we are poised for recovery. Remind them that interest rates are at their lowest since 1977; inflation is at its lowest since 1967; mortgage rates for first- time buyers lower than at any time since 1956.

    And tell them of our trade prospects. Exports are at record levels. Who would have thought a few years ago that we would be exporting cars to Japan? Yet we’re doing just that – in growing numbers. And now we have the biggest market in the world on our doorstep. More of our workforce in this country are in jobs than Italy, France, Spain, Germany or almost any European country you care to name.

    Last year, in the depths of recession, 400,000 new firms set up in business. In Europe five out of the top 10 companies are British. So are 11 Out of the top 20 and 17 out of the top 30. Today, we have the lowest number of strikes in recorded history. These are the conditions that encourage so many foreign companies to invest in Britain, bringing prosperity and jobs with them. Another £100 million worth of American investment was announced just yesterday creating up to 700 jobs. And on the same day, Michael Howard gave the go-ahead to Derby’s City Challenge Action Plan which will create over 4,600 new jobs. I know there are difficulties. In no sense do I ignore them. But don’t let us overlook the good news or we risk perpetuating the bad news.

    We don’t help the unemployed by spreading doom, gloom and depression. We help our competitors. Other countries don’t talk themselves down. And neither should we. The best way to help unemployed people back into work is to have confidence in our nation and self-confidence in ourselves.

    It has been a long haul to put the economic conditions in place for sustained growth and lasting jobs. Now we must take advantage of them. The European Commission predicts that we will be the fastest growing economy in the EC next year. Let’s prove them right. We have done it before. And we can do it again. And it will help enormously if we ditch this habit of national self-denigration. It isn’t necessary. And it isn’t helpful.

    Getting people back to work will take time and it will take persistence. It will be a hard fight. It will need growth in the economy. But we are determined to achieve it.

    The long-term strategy is right. But we have a short term problem to deal with too. So let me tell you what we are doing. We have a massive programme of support for people who are unemployed. Helping them to find work where possible. Keeping them in touch with the labour market. Encouraging them to use their time constructively. We want to do more to keep people in touch with the world of work, either by giving them new opportunities for work experience, or, in some cases, making sure they take advantage of existing opportunities.

    Our employment programmes are being expanded further from this April. Expanded to offer opportunities for 1.5 million people to get back into work. We are producing practical measures to deal with this problem. Labour call for us to “do something”. But whenever we bring in programmes to help – youth training, job interview guarantees, training for work, Jobclubs, Restart, and our Jobplan Workshops – what do they do? Labour vote against those programmes. “Do something”, they say. Well, they could do something too. Get Out of the ‘No’ lobby and onto the side of those looking for work. And that’s where they’ll find us.

    And one other thing. We reject – and will continue to reject – the Social Chapter. France can complain as much as it likes. If investors and businesses choose to come to Britain rather than pay the costs of socialism in France, let them call it social dumping. I call it dumping socialism.

    Let Jacques Delors accuse us of creating a paradise for foreign investors. I am happy to plead guilty. Again and again we warned our European partners about the Social Chapter. And now that our warning has turned out to be right we are not changing policy. They can have the Social Chapter. We’ll have the jobs.

    The importance of local government

    I don’t need persuading about the importance of local government. I know and feel it in my bones. It forms a central part of my political beliefs. So let me set out for you my credo for the future of local government.

    Above all, I want the 1990s to see a renaissance of local government – with modem, forward-looking local leadership. Rooted in civic pride. Rooted in ideals of public service that made household names of so many Conservative council leaders in the past.

    Second, local councils, like central government, must commit themselves to better quality in public service. People won’t be fobbed off any more with the old excuses – and rightly so.

    Third, local government must work with central government to give people more responsibility over their own lives.

    Fourth, it’s time to set a structure for local government that will last. We need to define its responsibilities once and for all. And then let you carry them out.

    Fifth, we must build a new accountability fit for the 21st century – a new accountability that goes directly from those who run public services to those who use them. Many local government services impact directly on the family. In these areas, particularly housing and education, people want to exercise their own choices, not subcontract them wholly to Government – however benevolent and well intentioned Government may be.

    Local Government Structure

    I believe we have a system of local government finance that will last. Now we must seek a structure of local authorities that will stand the test of time as well. I want this change in structure to be the best – and the last.

    There is, I think, a widespread view that the structure and responsibilities of local government are not as clear as they should be. The pattern is too complex. There is a case for structural change.

    But a structure that lasts will not be one that Whitehall has imposed. It will be one that grows naturally from people’s loyalties and local traditions. That’s why we have no national blueprint for local government structure.

    In the 1880s this Party set out a pattern of local government that endured for a century. In the 1990s I want to agree a new pattern – one that lasts, in its turn, well into the century to come. I want an end to the wrangling and the wrestling about structure and functions. I want agreement about the proper role of local government – where it is, what it is, and how it should perform. I want you to know what that role is. I want the public to know it. Then I want to leave you to get on with the job. My message is straightforward: let’s stop batting one another around the head and get on with good government.

    Where the system works well, don’t let’s change it. And let me tell you one other thing, plain and simple. There is going to be no – repeat no – new tier of regional government set above you. That is a cock-eyed idea of our opponents – without identity, without price, without principle and without purpose. And that applies to our opponents as well as that idea. It’s just another half-baked piece of socialism we can do without. We are getting rid of regional monstrosities in Scotland; we have no intention of re-inventing them elsewhere.

    Local government in the modern era

    We are the Conservative Party. Think what that means. It means we do not change for change’s sake. We only change for improvement. And we look for improvement in local government because we care about it.

    I want our reforms to be the friend of local government, not the enemy. The more effective local government is, the more popular it will be. We want to show people which councils are serving them best – and those councils will be Conservative councils.

    The public pay their taxes compulsorily. They should be given more information voluntarily. That’s why we are allowing the Audit Commission power to publish more comparative league tables of performance – powers I hope they will use. Local people should have the chance to judge how their councils are doing. Let’s give them straight answers to the questions they ask. They deserve them – and we must give them.

    Quality Service from Conservative Councils

    I know that not everyone welcomes the new openness. Even some Conservatives are uneasy. We shouldn’t be. It is one of the great differences between us and the other parties. We recognise that this is the age of the consumer, not the producer. And the new ethos of public service and value for money must apply as much to the local council as it does in the market place.

    No-one here has anything to fear from that. It is in Conservative councils that you’ll find the best quality at the best price. I don’t have to look far for proof of that – Huntingdonshire District have set the council tax for a Band C property at minus £4. But I’m the first to concede that my neck of the woods does not have a monopoly of virtue – Hambleton has come in at minus £10, and Wellingborough even lower.

    It’s in Labour councils that you’ll find the homes left empty, the rents uncollected, the inefficiency and worse.

    If you doubt that’s true, consider this. Labour councils are planning to charge nearly £100 more in council tax than Conservative ones. Liberal Democrats are planning £50 more. That’s the soggy Left for you – Labour will take an arm and a leg; the Liberals an arm or a leg. But the poor old taxpayer is clobbered either way. And isn’t it just typical of the Liberals? They never did know their arm from their elbow.

    Creating a New Accountability

    I spoke also of a new accountability. Let me say more about what we mean by that.

    We mean direct accountability – of supplier to customer. It is parents who have the strongest interest in the success of their children’s school. So give them the right to ensure that the school delivers. Give them the information about how the schools in their town or district are, doing. Give them the chance to choose the school in the first place.

    Council tenants want more control over the management of their lives. So give them the chance to buy – and help them to do so. And if they don’t want to buy, give them the assurance that remote, incompetent and unresponsive management will be shaken up. Give them the information about the standards of service they’re getting, and the right to choose.

    Hardly revolutionary, you might think. Yet there are still some in the Labour Party who claim that to give people more information upon which to base their choices is an assault on democracy.

    Don’t you find that astonishing? Is that not really a perversion of logic and language. How can giving choice be an assault on democracy? How can giving more information be an assault on democracy? So much for the fine talk from Labour about being the Party of the individual. What they mean is that Labour is the Party that likes to tell individuals what to do.

    Let us be the Party that tells individuals what Government is doing.

    We give them information.

    We give them choice.

    And we give them power.

    These are the policies that people want. And if Labour really understood individuals they would know that. All of us here today have a sense of common purpose. Michael Howard and his team have been working hard to build an ever closer relationship between Conservative councils and a Conservative Government. And what you have done to introduce the Council Tax smoothly is a tribute to that new spirit as well. We serve the same people in the same country and we serve them best when we work together.

    Enabling Businesses to Grow

    Let me tell you of some of the other key areas where I want Conservative government – central and local – to be working in partnership in the ’90s.

    All of us in public service have our part to play in getting the economy growing again. You know – as I know – that we are entering a very difficult time for public sector spending. But the truth is that for the economy to grow, we have to reduce the cost of the public sector.

    This year’s local authority settlement is tight. So is public spending as a whole. We have a 1.5 per cent limit on public sector pay. I know many of you are being very robust in your budgeting this year. But with inflation now down to 1.7 per cent, there is no better time for pushing through tough decisions on spending and pay.

    And, in our battle for more jobs, there is more we can do to help business. Take planning. Of course we must cherish and protect our heritage. No one doubts that. But restrictive planning policies can shut the door on business opportunities. Wherever possible, we should be helping new businesses locate in our areas, and help people to move where jobs are available – not stand in their way.

    And you can help, too, by getting unnecessary regulation off businesses’ backs. I acknowledge that we in government have often gone too far in imposing unnecessary regulatory duties on local councils. Well, that’s going to stop.

    But I need your help too. Some council departments enforce such regulations with too heavy a hand. We must stop that as well.

    So here are some questions for you to ask your Environmental Health Officers and your social services departments. And perhaps they should ask their clients too.

    Why do so many nursery schools complain about social services inspection? Do Environmental Health Officers really take account of local needs when they inspect the local shop? Do they insist on higher standards for the private and voluntary sectors than they do in the public sector?

    We have to make deregulation effective. So I ask for your help to do so. It is one sure way of helping businesses to grow. Prospects to grow. And jobs to grow.

    Better Housing

    And, in local government, you have other ways to join us in extending choice and opportunity to all.

    In housing, it was Conservative, councils who pioneered the right to buy. They saw an opportunity to help people achieve their dreams of home ownership. And they did so. And government followed where local government led. As a result, nearly one and a half million council tenants have become home owners under Right to Buy since 1979.

    And don’t believe it when people say that the demand for home ownership is past. I don’t accept that for a second.

    That is why the Housing bill, now before Parliament, gives tenants a new right to become home-owners by converting their rents into mortgage payments.

    And now – with mortgage rates for first time buyers the lowest since 1956 – now is the time to remind tenants that they can have huge discounts when buying their home.

    Michael Howard and his team will be launching a new campaign to spread the Right to Buy. They will be taking that message to more than a million tenants this spring.

    I want you to help them spread that message. Help those people to know the pride of ownership. To have their very own piece of Britain. And to build up something for themselves and for their children.

    Better Education

    We must also give parents a bigger say in the education of their children. More schools are going grant maintained. All schools are running more of their own budgets. And I don’t expect to hear of Conservative councils standing in their way. We must always remember what we are fighting for – and what we are fighting against. In the 1980s, housing was the chosen battleground for the Left. The Right to Buy challenged their biggest power base. Why? Because it gave people what they wanted – independence and a stake in our country’s future. That policy brought great dividends to the Party, our Party which made it possible.

    Education is still a battleground for the Left and for the same reasons. Education can liberate. An educated person is hard to oppress. It is education above all that makes a society of opportunity and breaks the bonds of class. To parents it brings that most priceless gift: the certainty that their children will have better opportunities than they ever had.

    That’s why the Conservative Party – in central and local government alike – must recognise that our education reforms are the most vital of all for our country. Don’t listen to those who want to cloak exam results in secrecy. Don’t listen to those who want to keep parents locked outside the school gate. I won’t mince my words: the campaign against testing is a disgrace – a smokescreen thrown up to cover the disastrous results of failed educational theories.

    So let’s make parents and pupils the driving force in our schools. Let people in years to come look back and remember that it was we – we in this Party – who set the course for a revolution in the standard and quality of education. Who threw away the nostrums of the ’60s. Who let our teachers do the job as commonsense tells them best. There’s a lot at stake in this battle. So go out and win it.

    The Message of Conservatism

    This Spring, we face County Council elections. Take this message with you as you campaign.

    If you want to keep the Council Tax low, vote Conservative.

    If you want high standards in schools, vote Conservative.

    If you want local government that puts people first, vote Conservative.

    Our councillors know no equals in dedication, determination and commitment. You get involved to make things better. You don’t turn away and leave it to others. So don’t be bashful. Go and get out there. Tell them what you stand for. Tell them what you have achieved. Tell them what you plan for the future.

    That is what you’ve always done. That is why you win. And that is why you’ll deserve to win again on May 6th.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy – 25 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made in Washington on 25th February 1993.


    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked about the state of the economy and unemployment]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you have to accept the fact that it isn’t just a problem in the United Kingdom. I know that is not any comfort to the people who are unemployed in the United Kingdom but neither is it any help to suggest that it is uniquely a United Kingdom problem.

    In Japan, in Germany, in the United States and in all sorts of other countries there have been large job losses in recent months and for the same reason – because the recession we face in the United Kingdom is a recession that is biting painfully everywhere. The point is what can we do and what has happened?

    What we need to do to get people back into secure employment is to take the decision to get the economic fundamentals right. Some months ago, we had an inflation rate that was much higher – it is now down to 1.7%; we had interest rates at 14% – they are now down to 6%; we saw no signs of increasing re-investment – we are now beginning to see those signs of re-investment and we have also made some further progress towards the determination of the world trade talks which will lift world trade and create jobs everywhere.

    They are practical measures, sound bite politics criticising the Government may be part of the party political plan but it is practical measures like these that will provide secure jobs for the future and that is what concerns me.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked whether the Government had made mistakes]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If it satisfies you, no government that has ever been in office has failed to make mistakes. What we are concerned about is getting people back to work. It is the future. We are going to be living in this decade in the most competitive decade that we have ever seen. That means we have to have a competitive economy, it means in terms like inflation we need to be at least as good and hopefully better than our principal opponents.

    One of the points I think many people have failed to recognise about the changes in British industry is that we now have the most effective productivity rates anywhere in Europe. That is vitally important because it means we are competitive. Our exports are growing. People often saw years ago us having a declining share of world trade. It is now stabilised and potentially growing for the first time in generations. That is important because of what it means for our prospects in the 1990s. Unless we out-compete other countries we will have no secure prospects so we need the circumstances to make sure we can do that and that is what we putting in place.

    QUESTION:

    [The Prime Minister was asked about whether enough was being done about job creation and school rebuilding]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But you overlook what we did in the Autumn Statement. We did create a job-creation programme in many of the measures that the Chancellor actually took in the Autumn Statement.

    The point that I am making is a different point, that to believe that you can actually solve the problem with short-term palliatives is wrong. We have put in range firstly the job-creation measures that the Chancellor announced in the Autumn Statement and secondly, to deal and assist with people who are unemployed at the moment, a wide range of training and other programmes. It is important to keep people who are out of work in touch with the world at work and to provide them with training opportunities so that they can use their skills. That is what we are doing.

    It is a three-pronged approach, get the economic fundamentals of interest rates, inflation and supply-side policies right, then have the right training programme so that people can benefit from those during the period that they are unemployed. Those are the sort of measures that are necessary.

  • Mr Major’s Pool Interview with the Media – 25 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s pool interview with the media, en route to London on Thursday 25th February 1993.


    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, your trip to America I understand has ended on a good note for British jobs?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes it has, I think it is very good news. We have seen several pieces of good news recently, the move of Hoover to the United Kingdom I think is very good news, and of course Digital establishing themselves in a bigger way at Ayr, safeguarding 1,100 jobs and potentially providing several hundred more, I think that is very good news.

    QUESTION:

    Can you claim some personal credit for an initiative of your own, I notice you had Howard Davies over here to meet the executives from the administration.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Howard Davies and Michael Angus were over here but that is what you would expect us to do and I am delighted to work with British industry when we could. I spoke to the Managing Director of Digital but that was after they had made the decision.

    QUESTION:

    You were being questioned quite heavily earlier on today about the loss of jobs in Britain and you were making the point that you believe the conditions for recovery are there and there is evidence of that, what is that evidence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are several things. In terms of external investment into this country, well we just mentioned some of the evidence. If you look at what was happening last year, even in the depths of the recession, I know about the job losses and so does everyone else, but 400,000 new firms actually registered for business in the depth of the recession last year. That was the pattern we saw after the 1981 recession that produced a substantial amount of employment growth throughout the 1980s, so I think that is a very important factor. The fact that in terms of productivity improvement we now have the best productivity rates of anywhere in the European Community is another important factor, not a glamorous one which people will immediately fasten upon, but a critical one from the point of view of investors as for job growth.

    QUESTION:

    It is not just draining jobs from our supposed European partners?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not believe so. If you actually look not just at the levels of unemployment in this country but also at the levels of employment in this country you get rather a different perspective. Of all the European countries we have the second highest proportion of our adult population in secure jobs, only Denmark is ahead of us and most of the European nations are well behind us.

    QUESTION:

    You have the Budget coming up, we did have a significant shift in economic policy at the end of last year, do you believe that that now is the political basis or does a lot more work have to be done politically to change the conditions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Autumn Statement was there to help stimulate recovery and I think most people would say that it did. The package that the Chancellor put in hand to deal with repossessions was clearly very successful. We must now address the situation as it is and the Chancellor will do that in the Budget.

    QUESTION:

    I was surprised by the warmth of President Clinton when he met you yesterday, what do you think lay behind that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course although it was the first time President Clinton and I had met, we have had a number of very lengthy and detailed telephone conversations, so we were hardly strangers. We had addressed a series of problems together, we had examined them together and both of us had a very clear idea of what was in the other’s mind when we met. But underlying personal relationships there is the shared interests that the United States and the United Kingdom have, shared instincts but also shared interests in how we have free trade, how to lead to trade agreements, how we deal with Yugoslavia, Russia, Iraq. Those are areas where the United States would look instinctively to us, knowing that we would be likely to share their view, and where we would look instinctively to them for precisely the same reason.

    QUESTION:

    They were concerned perhaps that the campaign rhetoric had worried people in Europe and that we needed reassurance perhaps?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Campaigns are curious things on each side of the Atlantic and all the way around the world, one has to face the realities of governing and dealing with problems as they are, that is what governments are about and that is what they do. I think we will work very closely with this administration as we did with the last.

  • PMQT – 25 February 1993

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Ewing : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

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

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is on an official visit to the United States, which is clearly going extremely well.

    Mrs. Ewing : Will the Lord President of the Council accept that there has been a very warm welcome for the fact that the European Commission has designated the highlands and islands of Scotland as being eligible for objective 1 payments? This matter has been made all the more urgent by the fact that Ardersier is to be placed on a care and maintenance basis. Will the Lord President make it clear that the United Kingdom Government are to argue that the highlands and islands area to be covered by objective 1 should be the same as the highlands and islands enterprise area, which includes the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and parts of my constituency? In both cases the economy is very fragile, and we need this assistance.

    Mr. Newton : The whole House will join the hon. Lady in welcoming the announcement that the highlands and islands have been included in the list of recommendations that the Commission is making for designation under objective 1 in the next round of the structural fund. Of course, those recommendations are still subject to scrutiny and to final decision by the Council of Ministers. In the discussions, the United Kingdom will certainly seek to ensure that the needs and interests of west Grampian and of Argyll and Bute are taken fully into account as efforts are made to achieve the best outcome for the highlands and islands.

    Mr. Dykes : As my right hon. Friend has said, the Prime Minister’s visit to President Clinton and the new American Government has been extremely successful. Can he confirm that we are resisting the rather unfair attacks on the Airbus, the excellent British and European aircraft, and on its related equipment being made by American manufacturers, bearing in mind the fact that American subventions for aircraft are much higher than those in Europe?

    Mr. Newton : I am not in a position to give details of every aspect of my right hon. Friend’s conversations, but I have no doubt that he has emphasised the British Government’s view on those matters.

    Mrs. Beckett : How would the right hon. Gentleman feel if he were serving in the British Army, under fire in Bosnia, and were handed a P45?

    Mr. Newton : The need to achieve balanced and well-considered reductions in the armed forces was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Armed Forces some months ago. It is appropriate that that exercise should be carried through in a balanced and fair way. Of course, there is no question of anybody becoming redundant while in Bosnia.

    Mrs. Beckett : Is it not a further example of the Government’s incompetence that one week they are reprieving regiments because the British Army is overstretched and the next they are making soldiers redundant? Are they not gratuitously undermining the morale of British troops in one of the most dangerous theatres of operation?

    Mr. Newton : It seems to me that, against the background of a need acknowledged by all parties to make some reductions in the armed forces, it is right that it should be carried out fairly and even handedly. It would be much more unfair to leave troops serving in Bosnia in a state of continuing uncertainty when the position is being clarified elsewhere.

    Mrs. Beckett : Surely it is adding insult to injury to make soldiers redundant when the Government know perfectly well that there are no jobs for them to come back to. Is he aware that in some parts of the country, as many as 2,000 people are chasing every job?

    Mr. Newton : What I am aware of is that the armed forces have extensive arrangements for assisting those whose services come under the heading that we are discussing and that the great majority of those who left in the previous phase of change in the armed forces have found jobs, and their skills enhanced their prospects of doing so.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will my right hon. Friend commend the action of the judge at Lancaster Crown court who imposed on four youths who were guilty of affray and other crimes–one of whom was on bail–an immediate custodial sentence, which will teach a salutary lesson to other gangs who choose to maraud?

    Mr. Newton : Without being familiar with every detail of the particular case, I endorse the general thrust of my hon. Friend’s remarks. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have her support and, I hope, that of the House when he issues further proposals shortly in respect of juvenile offenders and of those offending while on bail.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Leader of the House recall the Prime Minister’s commitment that under the citizens charter the public would be compensated when the authorities failed? Is he aware of today’s Treasury Committee report which concludes that the Bank of England has manifestly failed in its duty of supervision in the case of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Will the sufferers be compensated, or is this to be another example of “do as I say but not as I do”?

    Mr. Newton : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already carefully considered the implications of the Bingham report and made it clear that the Government do not believe that it would be right to offer compensation beyond that provided in general banking legislation under the statutory deposit protection scheme. Of course, my right hon. Friend and the Government as a whole will carefully study the report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I certainly do not expect them to change their conclusion.

    Mr. Richards : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s trade union reforms have completely transformed the industrial relations climate, and will he join me in welcoming to our policies the Johnny-come-latelys on the Opposition Benches no matter how belated their conversion?

    Mr. Newton : Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend and endorse what he says. The Opposition have opposed every significant piece of reform legislation that we have passed since 1979 in that connection, but have had to come to a grudging acceptance of them as their beneficial results become clear. We have a continuing flow of examples of investment coming into this country which has been helped in coming here by precisely those reforms.

     

    Q2. Mr. Bennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Bennett : I have here a few reports covering the past 14 years of Home Office Ministers assuring us that they would get tough on crime. Can the Leader of the House tell us how many promises were made and why they have not worked? Could it possibly be because of the sort of society that this Government have created, in which people have been encouraged to be selfish and to put self-interest first ; a society in which no one is expected to understand right or wrong, but merely whether one can get away with it, and in which Ministers are trained to say, “Not me, guv”?

    Mr. Newton : I would take that more easily from somebody who was not a representative of a party which has voted against or sought to weaken every substantial measure designed to tackle the problem : the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and, regularly, the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The test of the hon. Gentleman’s commitment will be how he votes when the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act comes again before the House shortly.

    Mr. Waterson : Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people in my constituency of Eastbourne and throughout the country stand to benefit from the Housing and Urban Development Bill? Is it not a great pity that Opposition Members voted against it on Second and Third Readings?

    Mr. Newton : Yes it is, and it is typical of the way in which the Opposition so often fail to vote in the way that much of their rhetoric indicates that they should.

     

    Q3. Ms. Eagle : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Ms. Eagle : Does the Lord President of the Council agree with the views expressed yesterday by his colleague, Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that Britain’s withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism was a humiliation which could have been avoided if Britain had cut interest rates earlier and realigned earlier? Does he agree with me that Lord Lawson’s comments are hardly a ringing endorsement of his Government’s economic competence?

    Mr. Newton : No, I do not entirely share the views that my right hon. and noble Friend is reported to have expressed. I would have found it more credible coming from the hon. Lady if she had joined the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in referring to something that her constituents will benefit from–the inclusion of Merseyside in objective 1 status.

     

    Q4. Mr. Willetts : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Willetts : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the battle against over-regulation must be one of the Government’s highest priorities? Is it not absurd that health and safety regulations prohibit one of our leading physicists, who has written the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” entry on electricity, from changing a 13 amp plug in his own laboratory?

    Mr. Newton : It certainly sounds so on the face of it, but I had better undertake to look into the particular case, while agreeing entirely with my hon. Friend’s basic proposition, which is that we need precisely what is now being carried out by the Government–a thorough-going review of some aspects of over-regulation.

     

    Q5. Mr. Hoon : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Hoon : Since the Leader of the House is keen on talking about European Community funding, can he explain to Britain’s depressed regions why not one penny of the £1 billion that is available to this country from the EC in regional funding had been spent at the end of last year? Will he assure the House that all that £1 billion will be spent, together with the £2.5 billion matching funds that will be required in the next 10 months, and ensure that the money is spent in Britain on helping our depressed regions rather than being lost to other countries?

    Mr. Newton : The Government fully comply with the Community’s rules in these matters and have every intention of making that even clearer than, evidently, it is to the hon. Gentleman.

     

    Q6. Mr. Evennett : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Evennett : Has my right hon. Friend observed that on average council tax in Labour authorities will be £100 higher than in Conservative authorities and will he pass that information on to the Prime Minister when he returns from his successful trip to the United States? Furthermore, does my right hon. Friend agree that Conservative councils are efficient and effective, while Labour councils just cost the people more?

    Mr. Newton : Yes, I have noticed such reports. There is a remarkable correlation between high levels of council tax and Labour control, and between low levels of council tax and Conservative control. If there is any risk of that lesson being missed, we shall ensure that the electorate are made aware of it between now and the local elections in May.

    Mr. Home Robertson : May I take the Leader of the House back to the question of the redundant soldiers? What does he say to Royal Scots serving in Northern Ireland, and members of the Cheshire Regiment serving in Bosnia, whom I met last week, who applied for voluntary redundancy on the understanding that their regiments were to be amalgamated and who would now like to have the opportunity to withdraw their redundancy applications? It is not good enough to say that they have the right to appeal. Under the new circumstances, they should have the right to stay in the Army and should not be issued with P45s.

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces tells me that that matter was the subject of exchanges in yesterday’s debate and that he made the position clear to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) then. I am certainly not going to add to that now.