The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the London Conference – 26 August 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made at the London Conference on Wednesday 26th August 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    May I firstly welcome you all to the London Conference, a conference sponsored jointly by the United Nations and the European Community. I think no explanation is necessary to the people present today as to why we are here or to the size of the problem that lies before us. What we are hoping from this conference is that it will prove to be a decisive turning point, that it will mark a decisive new phase in the search for the peace in the former Yugoslavia territories that all of us wish to see.

    What I fear we can see daily as we look around is the tragedy of Yugoslavia unfolding and throughout the world all our fellow citizens in each of our individual countries have seen the waste, the despair and the growing danger of the continuing conflict in Yugoslavia.

    In this room are the people who can stop this war, end the bloodshed, reach a lasting settlement. I do not believe that world opinion will readily forgive anyone who impedes that work over the next couple of days and beyond.

    The people that we represent at this conference have been appalled by the destruction, the killing, the maiming and the sheer cruelty which has disfigured the former Yugoslavia. We all seek a just peace and against that background it seemed to the Secretary General and to me that the United Nations and the European Community should join together in holding this conference.

    Fortunately, we will not be beginning our work from scratch. The European Community has given monitors and sponsored a peace conference. Lord Carrington, to whom I pay a very warm and very well deserved tribute, has made substantial progress and we should build on that. The United Nations has passed resolutions bringing in an arms embargo on Serbia and Montenegro. Ten days ago the Security Council agreed that all necessary measures could be used to deliver humanitarian aid. The UN agencies have supplied and distributed emergency aid and cared for refugees and individual countries, many represented here today, have contributed too, often by taking in large numbers of refugees.

    But I think we have all felt that the time has come to broaden and to intensify our work. And let me suggest to you, as co-Chairman, how I believe we should tackle that task.

    Firstly, humanitarian help. Even if peace were achieved tomorrow, hundreds of thousands of people would still be involved in hunger, sickness, desperation, and those problems are bound to worsen as winter approaches.

    The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that some two and a half million people remain in the former Yugoslavia and over one and a quarter million of these will depend on outside help with shelter, food and medicines to see them through the coming winter. Without that help many of that 1.3 million may not survive. And this is not a natural disaster we are dealing with, it is a man-made disaster and it needs a man-made solution and this conference can make its contribution to that.

    We must ensure that humanitarian supplies are distributed to the victims of this conflict, particularly those victims still trapped in the war zones in Bosnia. I believe that the humanitarian agencies have done an outstanding job, they have put their lives on the line to assist in the survival of others. The Security Council Resolution 770 is a guarantee the international community have given that we will not leave the United Nations and its agencies without help and protection in the task they have overtaken.

    It cannot be done by force but it must be done in safety. And that is why my country and others are willing to provide armed escorts to help the relief convoys on their missions of mercy. We have no hostile intent to any party in Bosnia, but I have to say to the conference that we will not be deflected from our determination to deliver aid wherever it is needed.

    And thirdly, therefore, we must work for peace with justice with as much energy as we relieve those already suffering from war as a result of injustice. It is clear that we need a peace process and that this should be coupled with the necessary international pressure to bring success.

    That peace process is vital but it must be based, I believe, on certain fundamental principles. The first is that frontiers cannot be altered by force, the international community will not accept that Bosnia can be partitioned by conquest. Those who suppose they can secure international acceptance of military advantages gained by force are mistaken in that judgment.

    The second principle is that within those fixed frontiers minorities are entitled to full protection and respect to their civil rights, this applies universally whether in Bosnia, Croatia or Serbia. And those two principles go together, neither can be effective without the other.

    And so the principles and how we hope to achieve them are set out in the two key documents which I hope the conference will adopt. The statement of principles sets out the basic international standards which must govern a settlement, I cannot believe after further discussion that any of us here will not be able and prepared to subscribe to it.

    But what counts of course is not just the acceptance of those principles but the subsequent application of those principles and they are in reality not being completely fulfilled by any of the main parties to the crisis at present.

    We must therefore help the parties to come closer to doing so and that is the purpose of the work set out in the action programme. This conference will remain in being and will remain active. Its work will be handled in partnership by the United Nations and the Presidency of the European Community and in addition we urgently need a high level international task group to tackle each main problem that we face. Those task groups will build on the work already done by the European Community peace conference and the United Nations. They must then get down to work energetically and unremittingly on the problems they have been set and we must also strive for further practical progress during the conference on various key questions – humanitarian issues, confidence-building measures and the implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions.

    We shall also be looking tomorrow at two further documents. These are the draft statements, one on Serbia, one on Bosnia. I hope that all parties will be able to adopt them. Like the statement of principles, they should be uncontentious. We believe, for example, that they are consistent with Mr Panic’s recent letter to the United Nations Security Council which struck a note of realism and of moderation.

    It is essential that this is followed up in deeds as well as in words and if all the Yugoslav parties at this conference, including Serbia, are prepared to subscribe to the draft statements this will be an encouraging sign. And if not, if not, the world will be entitled to doubt the goodwill of those who stand out against it and to draw the appropriate conclusions.

    What are those conclusions? Those conclusions must mean bringing pressure to bear on governments or factions which do not abide by those principles. That in turn means sanctions. We need to enforce them more effectively and if necessary intensify them and that will be an inevitable issue at this conference and perhaps beyond it too.

    No-one should under-estimate the anguish that is felt around the world at the events that unfold daily. The different former Yugoslav delegations, and in particular I think those from Serbia and Montenegro, must ask themselves this question: Do you wish to be considered as part of Europe? Do you wish to belong to the world community? If so, good, but that does mean accepting the standards of the rest of Europe and of the world community.

    In this conference and beyond it we are ready to work with the republics of the former Yugoslavia to settle the final new constitutional arrangements in accordance with the principles set out. Our aim is to take into account the legitimate interests of all parties. Parties who choose to ignore settlement by negotiation will find no support from other governments or international organisations. All the countries and organisations who have a role to play are represented here today at this conference. They will all set out their own view but I believe there is a common determination.

    For those who accept negotiation, and that means a willingness to make concessions and a genuine desire to find compromises, we have everything to offer. We will speed up your integration into the international community, we will begin with reconstruction aid, we will offer economic help through trade agreements, through export credits, through a full partnership in Europe. But if we do not get cooperation, the pressure will inexorably increase, condemnation, isolation, parties who stand in the way of agreement can expect even tougher sanctions, even more rigorously policed. No trade, no aid, no international recognition or role. Economic, cultural, political and diplomatic isolation. Those are the choices.

    So I see our task at this conference as ensuring humanitarian help, restoring respect for human rights and setting in hand a process which will lead to a just and enduring peace by agreeing on the necessary principles, on the pressures needed to put those principles into effect, and on the intensive programme of work needed to bring our process to success.

    That is what lies ahead of us at this conference and in the continuing work that may follow it. This I hope will prove to be a decisive break towards peace in the former Yugoslavia and that, I hope, is why everyone who is here has chosen to attend.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Iraq (II) – 18 August 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Iraq made during an interview held on Tuesday 18th August 1992.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what the current position was in Iraq].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we’ve said to the Iraqi authorities is that we’re now perfectly clear that they’re engaged in systematic repression of the Shias in the south of Iraq and that isn’t acceptable and that has got to stop.

    What we propose to do therefore is to monitor the whole area from the air, and whilst we’re doing that, to ensure the security of both the Shias and of the aircraft, we will instruct the Iraqi’s not to fly in that area.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what would happen if the Iraqis did fly in the banned area].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If they do, they’ll be perfectly well aware that they’re likely to be attacked.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if they would be attacked].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They will be attacked if they fly in the area that is proscribed, yes.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what would troops do if the Iraqis fought back].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have seen in the past that they would lose, but I hope that that won’t be the case. I hope they will accept the fact that the coalition, especially the Americans, the French and the British would be there in force monitoring what happens from the air and I hope and believe that they will accept the edict that will be laid before them and not fly in that area.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the troubles could now just escalate].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you have to realise why we’re doing it, we’re not doing it for no good reason. It’s happened because there is clear evidence now of the systematic murder and genocide of the Shias. Bombing by Saddam from the air on the Shias, reports not yet confirmed, but fairly good reports of napalm being used and this has been going on for some time. Increasing evidence of this is coming to light and it’s no longer tolerable.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Iraq (I) – 18 August 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Iraq made during an interview held on Tuesday 18th August 1992.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it was inevitable that Britain would have to return to Iraq?]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the scale of what is happening – and precisely what is happening to the Shias in the south has not been as evident in the past as it is at present – what has made the difference in the last week or so is receipt and examination of the report by the UN Commissioner Mr van der Stoel, who set out the details of the brutality against the Shias. That is beginning to add up with other evidence.

    There comes a time when behaviour that you dislike becomes behaviour that you can no longer tolerate and it has become clear over the last few days that the Iraqis have crossed that line.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was worried that this would lead to another full-scale war].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the first thing to say is that we cannot allow the full-scale persecution of the Shias in the way that we have seen. I think that has to be the point from which we start.

    I don’t believe it will create the sort of circumstances you have said. The Iraqis are very well aware that the Allies have overwhelming air superiority. The only effect of the Iraqis putting planes in the air against the British, French and American coalition is that they will lose those planes. I can’t be certain that they won’t do it, but I don’t myself believe that they will. I believe they will have to obey the “No Fly Zone” that we propose to create.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if people thought that the US President was leading this for domestic political reasons].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well if they do, they will be wrong. The view about what is happening there is just as strongly held by President Mitterrand in Paris, who has no elections to hand, and just as strongly by me, who has an election behind him not in front of him, as it is by President Bush, and I repeat, the catalyst that has brought this about has not been a request of any individual leader but the report to the United Nations of the United Nations High Commissioner who has seen and reported upon the persecution of the Shias, that is what has created the action.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Bosnia – 8 August 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Bosnia, made on 8th August 1992.

    [The Prime Minister was asked about his telephone call to President Bush].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I did have the opportunity of discussing a whole range of matters with President Bush. We have been looking at a series of options for some days. We’ve been looking at them with the Americans, with the French and with some of our other allies. That work collectively – collectively I stress that word – that work is still going on, when we’ve concluded it, we can reach decisions about what needs to be done.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Former Yugoslavia – 7 August 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep comments made on the former Yugoslavia on 7th August 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have been looking at a whole series of options over the last few days. They clearly need very careful consideration. They need a good deal of consultation with our allies.

    I think there’s nothing more I can say about that at the moment, but clearly everyone who saw that will be disturbed. It’s a very disturbing report.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on Yugoslavia – 7 August 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on the situation in Yugoslavia, made in Barcelona on 7th August 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In recent days there has been growing evidence of human rights abuses at the camps in Bosnia. I think everyone who has seen or learnt about those issues will be shocked. It is perfectly clear that those abuses have to be stopped and have to be stopped speedily.

    I believe the first thing that is necessary is to have independent observers in those camps, with full access, without delay. The moment they are there we must move further and make sure that those camps come under international and independent supervision. We will be promoting a resolution in the Security Council to his effect and promoting that resolution very speedily.

    I believe there are two other things that follow. We need to pull together internationally all the evidence that different nations have of abuses so that those responsible for those abuses can be caught, can be tried and can then be brought to book. And of course, in addition to that, it is necessary for us to continue with the Security Council resolutions to protect the humanitarian supplies that are presently going into Sarajevo and elsewhere. It is essential that those continue.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Comments on VAT – 28 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on VAT, made outside Lancaster House on 28th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Chancellor reached a very good agreement yesterday on Value Added Tax. Valued Added Tax has been a Community tax since the Treaty of Rome. What happened yesterday was that the Chancellor secured our nil rates of VAT – that is vitally important. We secured a minimum rate of VAT which means we do not have to change our rates of tax at all – many other countries have to change their rates of tax. We also secured, as part of a general package, an extremely beneficial deal for Scotch whisky. It was a good day yesterday and I think it is a very satisfactory outcome from our point of view.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in London – 20 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, made in London on Monday 20th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am afraid I have one piece of news for you that you will not have been expecting, we will be playing cricket against our European Community partners and I have some confidence about the outcome.

    Let me say firstly how pleased I am to be here today to present those awards, I know how important they are, I know how hard they are to earn, I know what a remarkable tribute they are to those who actually receive them, and so it is a very special pleasure to be here today to have the opportunity of presenting them.

    I know for some businesses at the moment it is a difficult time, there have been difficult months and for some those difficult months continue. But I think that, if anything, makes it even more important to beat the drum for free enterprise. Free enterprise is the only way in which this country is going to have the strength, the importance, the economic and political authority that I wish it to have, and that point might as well be understood at the low point of an economic cycle as well as the high point of an economic cycle. For at the moment we need that enterprise more than ever.

    But I think the point is really wider than that. We will always need free enterprise, the risk-takers, the go-getters, the people with energy to beat down barriers, create profits, create wealth, create jobs, and I believe that no-one knows that or understands it better than Aims of Industry and I do congratulate you on celebrating your 50th anniversary of fighting for free enterprise.

    I had a Mr Cube childhood, I grew up with that remarkable advertisement for free enterprise, it is I believe a natural part of our heritage and I think you can be very proud indeed at what Mr Cube stood for and what Mr Cube achieved.

    And I think when one looks at free enterprise, considers what it stands for and what it means, no-one illustrates the merits of free enterprise better than the three award winners today whom I congratulate very warmly on their achievements and on their success.

    We talk of free enterprise, it is worth pausing for a moment to ask what it means, what does it imply, what does enterprise need to be free from? Two things, I believe, essentially. First it needs, and you touched upon this in your remarks a few moments ago, it needs to be free of unnecessary government intervention. We are continuing to cut red tape and remove barriers to enterprise, but I share your view, there is still much more to be done and I will return to that in a few moments. But business does need to be free to take macro-economic business decisions about products, costs, markets, investment, and only the private entrepreneur can take those decisions in the interests of their own companies. But second, and in some ways perhaps rather more important, it needs to be free of unpredictable macro-economic cycles. We have broken free in recent years of our corporatist past, not just the corporatism of government picking winners or second guessing the businessmen, we have broken free of the idea that if only government would sit down over beer and sandwiches with the captains of industry and unions to agree a macro-economic strategy, all would be well.

    Well it was not when we did that and it would not be if we tried it again. The old idea that with a bit of tweaking of the money supply here, a little fine tuning of interest rates there, a little bit of spending somewhere else, everything will come out all right and then if all else fails, a massive devaluation to bail us out of our mistakes and to solve our problems.

    Well I must say to you bluntly, it never did and it never will and it is not the way to run an economy. I do not mean in saying that to imply that government and industry have nothing to discuss, of course they do, a great deal to discuss, but it is extremely important to have that informal dialogue and constructive partnership between government and industry on a wide range of issues. And the announcement of a re-shaped Department of Trade and Industry is specifically intended to make sure that the Department relates more closely to sectors of industry and provides us with an appropriate structure. It is not a precursor of an interventionist future for there is going to be no interventionist future.

    We want to see British companies win in the market places of the world. Coming second means coming nowhere, if you are second in a contract you do not get the contract. Unless you come first you might as well not have bothered. And what we seek to do is to strengthen our importance as a great trading nation and I make no apology for the determination of the government to help in achieving that objective.

    Today I have the pleasure of presenting some awards. But I would win a far greater prize for free enterprise if I could raise your eyes and other people’s eyes for a moment to the future and a wider opportunity.

    Let me state as a fundamental fact that I believe we must have consistency of economic policy. Business has been asking for this for decades so let us be consistent. I make no secret of the fact that I believe the economic policy we are following is the right economic policy, we are in the Exchange Rate Mechanism and we are staying in the Exchange Rate Mechanism. And I believe that will bring a very considerable prize within our grasp, that is a stable macro-economy, low inflation, permanently low inflation with enterprise freed not just from petty regulations but from the fear that all your efforts might come to nothing if you lose a gamble on the inflationary cycle. I want inflation to cease to be a matter for discussion in company boardrooms. Stable prices should be given, they should be expected, they have been for many years in the economies of some of our major competitors. Business has a right to expect stable prices and government has a responsibility to seek to deliver those stable prices.

    We are now getting inflation down and we mean to keep inflation down, it is fundamental to the health of the economy, it is fundamental to the health of free enterprise, it is not easy, it is painful, it does take a while but it is absolutely essential that we win that particular battle.

    It is of course in the nature of free enterprise to take risks, but the risks should not be the risks of the roulette wheel, the risks that you take should be those of challenging your competition in a fair race and in that we have a considerable competitive edge. We have always had the best scientists, the best innovators and I believe the best businessmen.

    In the 1980s we dramatically improved our performance in quality, in design, in marketing and in cross-competitiveness. And so in any fair race that might put us, British commerce and industry, among the favourites to win. And in this country we will have the added advantage that the social chapter, with its unwise costs and its unnecessary interferences, will not apply to us as it does to our principal competitors in the European Community. And let me tell you why it does not apply to us, it does not apply to us because I had no intention of removing government from your backs at home to have it reimposed by the European Community in Brussels, whether it be the social chapter or some other unnecessary imposition of that sort.

    But a low inflation economy is going to bring responsibilities for business as well as opportunities, it means greater responsibility for businessmen. Government are not going to bale out inefficiency or poor control of costs and wages by devaluation. There will be no return to the competitive devaluations of the 1960s and the 1970s, I believe they did terrible damage to British industry in the process and I am not going to return to that sort of policy again.

    And that means in future we will have to adjust our costs to the exchange rate rather than the other way around. And by us I include not just the private sector but the public sector. It is essential that we keep public spending under tight control and we intend to do so.

    Now some pessimists, and you see them, read them, hear them day after day, some pessimists, defeatists, have argued that we will never shake off the old ways, they argue that our history and our national character means that Britain will never be as responsible in controlling wage settlements and costs as our competitors abroad. well I believe that is blatant nonsense and if one looks at what is happening now I believe I can illustrate that. Pay settlements are running at about 4 percent, the lowest for many years; unit wage costs in manufacturing are falling and productivity is rising; our exports are at record levels despite the recession which also suggests that the Exchange Rate is not uncompetitive; and trade deficit in the European Community fell from 11 billion in 1990 to 2 billion in 1992.

    The 1980s were a remarkable decade, they were a decade of dramatic supply side reform. Let me pick up the point that you made a few moments ago, Chairman. We have by no means finished those supply side reforms. The President of the Board of Trade will be stepping up the drive against regulation at home and as a key aim of our Presidency, again to pick up the point you made, we will be pushing for more deregulation in Brussels. We are not just looking at less regulation from Brussels in the future, we are also looking to see what existing regulation in Brussels can be removed and removed speedily in the weeks and the months ahead.

    And let me just turn to one other vital supply side reform, and I refer to education. In the case of education, we have only just begun our reforms. John Patten will shortly be publishing further proposals for reform, they will be radical, they will be controversial, but they will be in the very best interests of our children. we will build on parental choice with more opting out, we will take determined action to rescue children whose prospects are blighted in the worst synch schools so often sited in so many of our great cities. A free enterprise culture needs recruits with skills, discipline and enthusiasm, they are the vital ingredients for success and we are determined to continue with our existing education reforms and to build on those existing education reforms to ensure that the education system produces the raw material upon which business can fasten and that will give business the skills that it needs to improve the private enterprise culture in the future. And that does mean an essential concentration on basics. To read, to write, to add up is the very basics of education in the early years of education. It does mean for those who are traditionalists that in terms of study Neighbours are out and Shakespeare is back in, and I must say, I believe that is the right decision.

    Mr Chairman, just let me say a further word to the three winners today. It is not perhaps my responsibility today to detail the remarkable achievements that have led to this award, but I would say this to them. There was perhaps a time in the past when business and business leaders were anonymous, but I do not believe any longer that is the case. The best of our great businessmen in this country are role models, as well as being the leaders of their own businesses, people know far more about them than ever they did before with the glare of publicity that follows both big business and every other aspect of public life these days.

    So their success will not just be a pleasure to themselves, not just important to their families and their shareholders and the country, it actually is a clear illustration to millions and millions of young people out there who see a free enterprise future of what can be achieved with the right talent, the right gifts, the right aptitude, the right consistency, the right innovation and the right luck, and I congratulate them most warmly on what they have achieved for themselves and on the importance of their achievement for those millions of other people around this country.

    Mr Chairman, in conclusion let me just simply say this, and I return to a theme I touched upon a moment or so ago but it is one I feel passionately about. Today I am presenting awards to outstanding examples of what I would call supply side achievement. In the 1990s we aim to add the missing ingredient to the policies of the 1980s and that missing ingredient is an environment of permanently low inflation, that prize is now within our grasp, let no-one, Mr Chairman, be in any doubt whatsoever that the government are determined that we will take this opportunity and keep that low inflation for it is vital to our future success.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on West Country Tour – 17 July 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made during his West Country visit, on 17th July 1992, entitled “Our Common Inheritance”.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted to be in Cornwall today and able to speak to you.

    I want to talk firstly about the great heritage of the South West and then turn to how that affects the challenges you face to generate growth in the local economy while preserving the unique character of this part of England.

    To be successful the drive and energy for growth must come from local people. It cannot be imposed. Drive and energy is something about which TECs know a great deal. It is their job to work with Iocal agencies and organisations to create local training and enterprise programmes which reflect local needs.

    The TEC in Devon and Cornwall was one of the first to be launched. And with a budget of 60 million pounds a year, it is one of the largest in the country. It already involves industrialists, employing one third of the total workforce, as well as local authority, educational and other community leaders, from across the two counties. It is driving forward with ‘Investors in People’ – our new national standard for companies making a commitment for training. It is also one of the 11 TECs chosen to pilot the new training credits scheme. Under the able chairmanship of Eric Dancer, it is going from strength to strength. If the TEC movement is to succeed it will be because TECs like Devon and Cornwall lead the way.

    A predecessor of mine, Stanley Baldwin used to talk about ‘Our Common Inheritance’. He was right to do so. And we know that without the counties of the South West, that inheritance would have been infinitely poorer.

    The Romans called the South West ‘Britannia Prima’. They knew a thing or two! King Arthur and his Court are not just of local interest in Tintagel or Camelford. They became a national myth which inspired the people and pageantry of England over many centuries. And what would we have been without Raleigh, without Drake, Grenville, Hawkins, Frobisher and the rest – all great West Countrymen? Would we have beaten the Armada? Would we have founded an Empire? Would we be renowned as a ‘seafaring nation’? I doubt it.

    Their instincts are still prevalent in the West Country. That combination of a strong conservatism with fierce local independence. The West Country is a unique part of England – and uniquely English too – proud of local tradition, adventurous, sceptical and, dare I say it, sometimes downright eccentric and no-one could – or would wish to – change that.

    It is impossible to travel to the West Country and not feel proud of this country. Some people have an insatiable appetite for running Britain down. Day after day on subject after subject our opponents tell us that Britain is always wrong. That we will always be beaten. That others will prevail.

    Yet most people are proud of their country. We have the greatest literature, the richest history, the finest countryside, the best sporting tradition and the most brilliant scientists and inventors of any country in the world. I have no hesitation or embarrassment in saying this. It is true. I am determined to keep it that way.

    These things are not accidental. We have an open society. We have a society in which Government has not tried to impose its own blueprint on the development of individual talent or local culture. Within the Union we have nations which have kept their separate identity and counties and communities with different traditions. A strong feeling of local independence is what makes us a united Kingdom.

    A Living Heritage

    We take so much for granted. People from the New World come to the Old World to find their ‘roots’ and we find it amusing. Not so amusing are the hatreds of hundreds of years which are being relived with terrible bloodshed in Yugoslavia – in the old Soviet empire and South Africa. Our heritage matters. Look around you. Is it possible to find a country whose heritage of buildings, of countryside and literature speaks more eloquently of centuries of mainly peaceful change?

    Love of heritage is no mere nostalgia for a past that no longer exists. As events in Yugoslavia demonstrate all too well – it shapes our behaviour now. In our case our inheritance of social and political stability gives us an immense competitive advantage. It attracts investment from overseas. It means that we are better equipped than many to meet the challenges of innovation and change that are the key to economic success. The question of key contemporary economic importance to the West Country is – how do we build on these strengths?

    The South West Preserving the Old: Exploring the New

    The South West faces many challenges. Many of us – many of you – have been hit by the recession in world trade. Many of you are having to make adjustments – often painful adjustments as jobs are lost in traditional employment – in mining – in defence and agriculture and fishing.

    Your challenge – our challenge is threefold. It is to develop new businesses – new employment – without compromising the unique character of these counties. It is to help traditional industries to adjust to meet the needs of the 1990s. It’s to ensure that local people have access to high quality services – to housing, education, health and many other things.

    My engagements in Cornwall today demonstrate the breadth and strength of its contribution to our nation.

    My first visit was to a successful dry docks in Penzance where I saw many of the traditional Cornish skills which have supported the area’s offshore industry for so many generations. I then visited an excellent Infants and Junior School in Cambourne, where no-one could fail to be impressed by the dedication of the teachers and the pride in the quality of the education they are offering their pupils.

    This afternoon I will visit one of the county’s principle tourist attractions – an excellent example of how the tourist industry can operate in harmony rather than in opposition to the environment.

    Finally I shall be visiting a company who have made a success of one of Cornwall’s most many famous exports, the pasty. Each and every pasty is still hand-made.

    Tourism – Combining Heritage with Prosperity

    Tourism has been a major growth area though it too is suffering – temporarily – from world recession. Yet some people like to suggest that tourism is a ‘Cinderella’ industry – ephemeral – somehow less real than jobs in traditional manufacturing. Remember some countries, half as well favoured as ours – have built their wealth on tourism. And it is expected to become the world’s biggest industry by the year 2000. Tourism is vital to Cornwall. It is a long-term growth industry. It provides people with flexible employment and it contributes 25 billion pounds to our GDP.

    But to me it is more than that. To be successful in tourism we have to advertise ourselves. We show our pride in our heritage. We have to talk ourselves up, not run ourselves down. Tourism can help us cherish and maintain our heritage. It is a vital component in a local economy. It provides a second income for many farmers. They can diversify. They can continue the traditional patterns of farming which give the South West its unique character.

    Although we are committed to developing tourism, tourist development must not be allowed to destroy the environment people come to see. Development must be high quality. It must be sensitively planned by local councils. Not for us the coastal high rise of the Costas. Our Britain is a country of local character and living communities. It is not Disneyland.

    Above all development must be sustained by local commitment. Your heritage is in your hands.

    Fighting for Britain’s Farmers and Fisherman

    We are determined to protect the interests of Britain’s farmers and fishermen. These are difficult times for Britain’s fishermen, and I understand people’s concern. But the truth is if there are no fish there is no future for them. That is why it is so important to conserve fish stocks and that is why we are taking measures through Parliament to safeguard their future. I recognise people’s fears. But I hope they will wait to see how the new arrangements work in practice. I don’t think there is any fundamental disagreement that without effective conservation our fishermen’s very future will be put in jeopardy. I also recognise the importance of proper enforcement of fisheries regulations which must apply to all people fishing in the waters of the South West. I think our determined response to the incident off the Scilly Isles two weeks ago demonstrated our commitment.

    We are fighting equally hard for Britain’s farmers. John Gummer’s success in agreeing a reformed Common Agricultural Policy is a remarkable achievement. It’s good for Britain’s farmers because we succeeded in removing measures which would have put them at a disadvantage. And it recognises that farming and environmental protection go hand in hand. We are also building on our environmentally sensitive areas scheme where we have led the way in Europe. The ESA in West Penwith was of course one of the first areas to be designated in 1987. We remain determined to preserve the unique and diverse character of British farming – from the small family farms of the South West to the extensive hill farms of Scotland and the big arable farms in my part of the world.

    Helping Local Communities Remain ‘Viable’

    Preserving the character of an area also means helping local people to live in the area. You face particular difficulties. Cornwall is especially attractive to people wanting holiday homes and retirement homes. We cannot and should not prevent that. Our prosperity depends on freedom to own – freedom to move – freedom to buy and sell. But I quite understand and have great sympathy with the concerns of local people that traditional communities are threatened by newcomers – ‘Grockles’ I believe they are called, buying up homes in rural villages and making it difficult for local people to find homes in the communities in which they were born and brought up.

    Local Housing for Local Needs

    The answer must lie in new housing – modest developments to meet local needs without damage to the character of villages and countryside. I can think of no other area in which the ‘enabling’ role of councils – as planning authorities – is more important. Careful and sensitive planning can make the difference between life and death for rural communities and for services – for shops – for schools – for pubs and other services on which they depend.

    I say ‘modest’ development. We don’t want to see the open countryside scarred by unsuitable developments that change this character that both locals and visitors value.

    There must be close partnership between planners, housing authorities and housing providers: partnership with housing associations who are – with our support – now major providers of affordable housing: partnership with local communities and landowners to take advantage of our ‘exceptions’ scheme. The release of small sites exceptionally, which would otherwise not be available for housing, to meet local village needs is proving increasingly popular. It has already contributed to the salvation of many village communities.

    There must also be partnership with commercial developers using the planning system to get low-cost housing in market developments where it is needed. Negotiation with developers is a key to increasing private sector provision of affordable housing. And councils can use their own land for ‘build under licence’ schemes – the right to nominate purchasers in exchange for cheaper land.

    Providing enough housing for local needs is a big challenge for the 1990s. We will be successful where councils use their planning role creatively and involve local communities. There is no national blueprint. Nor should there be. Decisions should be local: for local needs and preserving local character.

    Better Local Services

    Giving back choice and responsibility to local people runs like a grain through all our policies for public services. It provides the underlying philosophy of our Citizen’s Charter.

    In education we are returning to basics. We are raising standards. Shakespeare is in. Neighbours is out. Parents now have choice. More schools are going grant maintained, running their own show. Local people can shape their schools to meet local needs. They may want schools that specialise – in technology or music for example – or perhaps in Cornwall in view of the importance of tourism, in business studies, or in local heritage and the local environment. They may wish to develop selective or part selective schools or encourage particular styles of teaching and organisation.

    In health care local GPs and hospitals have new opportunities to shape the services they offer to meet local needs. Not surprisingly, the independent spirits of the South West have already established 18 NHS Trusts and 20 GP fundholding practices. They are raising the quality of NHS service towards the high quality of its medical care for which it has always been renowned.

    Unity in Diversity

    The history of twentieth century teaches us one basic fact. Where central government and central administration takes too much away from people, where it tries to forge a national cohesion from the centre, it is undermined from beneath by the alienation of people whose rights are usurped.

    The character of our nation is the sum of the contribution which individuals and local communities have made over many centuries. Yet for too much of this century, politicians have forgotten this fact. There has been too much ‘Whitehall knows best’. We are returning choice, returning responsibility to individuals and local communities. That is the key to a more united Kingdom – a Kingdom which values its common inheritance but respects the traditions, customs and instincts of all its people, wherever they live.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 July 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th July 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Construction Industry

    Mr. Devlin : To ask the Prime Minister if he will transfer responsibility for the construction industry from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Trade and Industry.

    The Prime Minister : No. The Department of the Environment is also responsible for housing and planning and for property holding. The interactions between all these responsibilities mean it makes sense to leave sponsorship of the construction industry where it is.

     

    Earth Summit

    Mr. Dafis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that the “Agenda 21” agreement at the Earth summit is given equal status in legal terms to the general agreement on tariffs and trade.

    The Prime Minister : Governments agreed agenda 21 as a dynamic framework for action reflecting political commitment at the highest level. It is not, however, intended to be a legally binding document. My EC and G7 colleagues have endorsed my plan for ensuring that agenda 21 and the other Rio agreements are implemented effectively, including through the preparation of national reports for the UN Sustainable Development Commission.

     

    Homelessness

    Mr. Martyn Jones : To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to establishing the ministerial interdepartmental committee to address the issue of homelessness.

    The Prime Minister : I am satisfied that the present arrangements provide for appropriate interdepartmental discussions of homelessness as necessary.

     

    Public Appointments

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list any public appointments by his Department since 1987 which have involved people from organisations criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

    The Prime Minister : The information is not held centrally in the form requested. My Department takes all relevant factors into account when considering such appointments.

     

    Departmental Advisers

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list any advisers retained by his Department since 1987 who have been criticised in published reports by DTI inspectors.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Mr. Chazanfer Ali

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Bradford, West concerning Mr. Chazanfer Ali if he will give an assurance that Mr. Ali will be given every assistance to return to the United Kingdom ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : Any entry clearance application from Mr. Ali will be considered on its merits and in accordance with the immigration rules.

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister what information he has received from the British post in Islamabad about Mr. Chazanfer Ali.

    The Prime Minister : On 29 June the British High Commission in Islamabad made inquiries of the Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs about Mr. Chazanfer Ali’s circumstances. Once a substantive response has been received I will write to the hon. Member.

     

    Babcock and Wilcox

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 29 June, Official Report, column 593, about the European Council in Lisbon what discussions he had with the Italian Prime Minister on the letter from Babcock and Wilcox.

    The Prime Minister : I am pursuing the matter with the Italian Prime Minister. The sanctions imposed by the United Nations against Libya consist of a ban on air links and an embargo on trade in arms and in aircraft and aircraft components. There has been no suggestion that Italy is not applying those sanctions. I am aware of the concern expressed in the letter from Babcock that British companies risk losing trading opportunities in Libya. But we cannot allow the promise of commercial favours to deflect us from our determination to ensure that the Libyans comply in full with United Nations Security Council resolutions 731 and 748.

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 July.

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