The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Economy – 9 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement to the House of Commons on 9th June 1993 in the Economic Debate.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I beg to move, to leave out from House’ to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof : welcomes the widespread indications of economic recovery in the United Kingdom at a time when many other major economies are in deepening recession ; recognises that the interests of industry are at the heart of the Government’s policy and acknowledges the comprehensive programme of training and employment opportunities for unemployed people that the Government has put in place; welcomes the Government’s commitment to its Manifesto pledges including its commitment to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public services through the Citizen’s Charter ; deplores the scare-mongering stories about public spending peddled by the Opposition ; and applauds the Government for its determination to maintain low inflation, sound public finances and firm control over total public expenditure upon which a sustainable economic recovery depends.’. As the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) sits down, I have little doubt what is in his mind : “That’ll keep John Edmonds quiet for a week or so.”

    Before I turn to the substance of the debate, I wish to say a word or two to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) regarding his remarks at the commencement of today’s debate. In his speech, my right hon. Friend spoke of a number of matters of very great importance, including the case that we have discussed on many occasions over the past two years for an independent central bank.

    I share my right hon. Friend’s loathing of inflation. That is an issue that we discussed frequently. We both saw the case for an independent central bank, able to take decisions on the implementation of monetary policy. There is a genuine case for that. I do not dissent from my right hon. Friend’s remarks about it. The very real concern that I have always faced is one that I believe is spread widely across the House : the need for accountability to Parliament for decisions on monetary policy matters. Were a way to be found to get the benefits of an independent central bank without the loss of parliamentary accountability, my views would be very close to those of my right hon. Friend, but I have to say to my right hon. Friend–I believe, from our many discussions, that it is a view he shares– that what is more important than the institutional arrangements is the underlying policy that is actually being followed. On that, I do not believe that an independent central bank would have brought down inflation any more rapidly than we have been able to achieve.That is something for which I am happy to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend.

    Also, I entirely share my right hon. Friend’s vision of the economic goals of this Government and of the difficult path that we have had to follow to achieve and maintain low inflation and restore sustainable growth and employment. My right hon. Friend and I– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must settle down. Hon. Members do not have to listen, but whoever is speaking has to be heard. There is a great distinction between those two statements. The Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend and I faced crises both before and after September last year. We worked together towards objectives that we shared, and we were always agreed as to our main goals : low inflation, sustainable economic growth, an increase in prosperity for all our people as medium and long-term objectives. I believe that history will look favourably on my right hon. Friend’s economic and financial skills, but a strong Government need political skills as well– [Interruption.] –when leading a democratic society and, in particular, when handling a lively House of Commons with a small majority.

    Dealing with the problems of a small majority is a fundamental fact of democracy that no one dare or should even attempt to overlook. However, as we have shown in the battle over inflation and in our pursuit of European policy, against great difficulties in this House, we were not prepared in the Government to allow short-term difficulties to deflect us from what were the right long-term policies for this country. That was the position, and it is the position.

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support and help throughout the past two and half difficult years. I acknowledge the difficulties that he has faced and the courage with which he has faced those difficulties, and I accept the support that he has offered to the Government for the future. I welcome the opportunity to debate economic policies at a time when output is up, exports are up, productivity is up, confidence is up and, as announced today, when business starts are up.

    The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has just made the speech that we expected of him. At the end of it, we are no better informed about his economic policies than we were at the beginning of it–or even about whether he has any economic policies or whether he has progressed beyond the sound bites that so frequently construct them. We do know something about the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We know that he is the man who announced the biggest tax increase in peacetime history, just before the general election. He is the man who said confidence would carry on falling, just before the CBI announced the highest level of confidence in 10 years, and he is the man who calls for a debate on the economy just as the economy is recovering. I hope that, with timing like that, the right hon. and learned Gentleman never takes up boxing, because it would be very painful. Many things can be said about him, but “floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee” is clearly not among them.

    What does seem right about the right hon. and learned Gentleman was said by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman what his right hon. Friend said about him : “I do not think that Members of Labour’s Front Bench would have even two ideas about what to do with the economy if they came to power a series of sound bites glued together and called an economic policy is not an economic policy.”–[ Official Report, 20 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 420.] That remains as true at the end of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s speech as it was before.

    Today’s debate goes right to the heart of the fundamental divide between the Conservative party and the Labour party. The Labour party stands for higher public spending, higher taxation and more state interference in business and industry. We stand for controlling public spending, bringing direct taxation down where we can and getting the state off the backs of businesses and individuals. Let me deal with one matter that was fundamental to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s speech. Let me turn immediately and clearly to social policy. I did not come into politics to dismantle the welfare state. I have no intention of doing so and neither does my party. At the moment, in different parts of the country there are many vulnerable people who are worried. They are worried because the Opposition systematically, day after day, leak after leak, sound bite after sound bite, have sought to frighten them. The Opposition have peddled scare after scare–

    Several hon. Members rose —

    The Prime Minister : I will give way later. The Opposition have peddled the man to spread scare stories; surely not a man to condone scare stories, so let me be charitable to him. Perhaps he did not know–had no idea–when the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) swore that we would privatise the national health service, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have known that that was untrue. He could not have known about that, because he is an honourable man.

    What did the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) say? He said that the Government were “threatening to cut pensions and benefits for the worse off.” In the autumn statement 13 days later, pensions and benefits rose. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not know what his hon. Friend would say, because he is an honourable man and would not have sanctioned it.

    It was the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s party that repeatedly claimed that trust hospitals were leaving the health service. They were not : the Labour party knew that they were not, yet it needlessly scared sick people for a vote or two, time after time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman could not have authorised that, because he is an honourable man–or so I had thought. But then I discovered what he had to say : “What’s going on will lead to the privatisation of the NHS.” That was flatly untrue, of course, and another scare. I wonder who could have spread it? The right hon. and learned Gentleman spread it. In the Labour party the scares come from the top and behind that moral righteousness is someone who has no scruples whatever.

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman claims that the Conservative party won the election by telling untruths. Let me remind him about that election. It was his party that published 10 patient case histories and had to withdraw them when it turned out that it had made them up. It was his party that made up untruths about a sick little girl and spread them across the country. That is the party that dares to talk to us about standards. There is a word for that, but it is not parliamentary.

    Let me turn to the subject of public spending. The Government know that, if the economy is to grow, the tax man cannot take more of the proceeds than the country can afford. In the Conservative party, we understand that people want more money in their own pockets and do not want the Government to spend their money for them. Of course, in the recession, spending had to increase. I do not apologise for that increase in spending–it was necessary in the recession and it was necessary to protect the vulnerable. I saw no support from Labour Members for any expenditure reductions throughout the recession and every support for dramatic increases week after week from every Member of the Opposition parties.

    Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles) : Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister : Later. During that recession, not only did expenditure necessarily rise but income necessarily fell and that added to the borrowing requirement. Even though a great deal of that will reverse as growth returns, it is going to take time. That is why we have embarked on the public spending review. Governments have to take difficult decisions. We have to face structural increases in public spending, as any Government would. There are demographic changes, changes in student numbers and more elderly people, especially the very old. As we address those problems, the Opposition gaily spread mischief–a little fib here, a little scare there–yet as it does so it is carrying out a review into social expenditure. It does not have the courage to do it directly ; it has farmed it out to the commission on social policy. The only form of contracting out that the Labour party approves of is contracting out difficult decisions to other people.

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot run away from what he said : “We” –that is, the Labour party– “should be prepared to re-examine everything. I have not ruled anything out”. That is its position on social policy and Labour Members nod in agreement. Daily, the Labour party invites us to rule things out, while it examines everything–pensions, child benefit and every other aspect of social policy.

    How responsible the right hon. and learned Gentleman is. I suppose that that comment shows that he wants to grapple with real problems, but when he faces other audiences, he wants to rule everything out. Which is the real right hon. and learned Gentleman? The gritty, determined facer of problems who wants to examine everything where nothing is ruled out, or the wriggler, twisting and turning, saying one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience?

    Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) : Could the Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury, tell us what he was doing during the long period of recession, which has caused so much misery throughout the country? Was he looking the other way? Was he train spotting? Was he walking into cupboards? Has there ever been a more wimpish approach to the problems that face this country than that which he has shown?

    The Prime Minister : I shall tell the hon. Gentleman directly : we have been presiding over a policy that brought inflation down to 1.3 per cent. and interest rates down to 6 per cent. so that this country is now poised for the largest growth in the European Community this year, next year and probably for the years beyond that. We have been taking the long- term view, not the short-term, option. That is what we have been doing–I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to point that out–while he has opposed every policy that has brought down inflation and interest rates.

    The Opposition will be glad to know that our review of public spending will be careful and thorough. There will be two criteria : are any changes fair, and are vulnerable people protected? When the answer is no, we shall not make the changes. When the answer is yes, we shall set out to the House the implications of those changes. There are no soft options. The Government’s duty is to examine them all and pick the right ones. We know that we need to reduce public borrowing, which is why, in the last Budget, we decided that some increase in revenue was necessary.

    We decided to introduce value added tax on fuel and power, not least because it would help meet our Rio commitments, commitments that the Opposition urged us to extend. We had every reason to expect cross-party support. The Liberal Democrats had stated in their green paper : “Liberal Democrats advocate as a first priority the imposition of a tax on energy The UK is unusual amongst EC members in not applying even standard rates of VAT on domestic fuels we would press forward by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel”. Where were those men of principle in the Division Lobbies after the Budget?

    What did the Labour party say? It said : “Zero rating on items such as food, fares, books and children’s clothing should remain as an essential part of the VAT system.” That was quite clear. It continued : “We will also use the tax system, as well as regulation, to help protect the environment.” That can mean only one thing. In the list of zero-rated items, there is no reference to zero rating for domestic fuel. The Opposition intended to put it up, and they know it. If they did not, will they tell me now why it was not in their list of zero-rated items? The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East does not answer–no doubt, as a QC, he believes in the right to silence for an accused.

    When we introduced VAT on fuel and power, we made it clear that there would be extra help for less well-off pensioners and others on low incomes. I am glad to repeat that commitment. In recent months, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a great deal of the VAT increase, as have his hon. Friends.

    Ms Harriet Harman (Peckham) : So have the voters.

    The Prime Minister : So did the voters, says the right hon. Lady. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention is that he was the Energy Minister who let electricity prices rise. What was the increase–5 per cent., 10 per cent., 15 per cent.? No, it was 30 per cent. over and above inflation.What did the right hon. and learned Gentleman do to help the less well-off? I shall tell the House what he did–absolutely nothing. The position is clear. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cares about pensioners when he is in opposition–how he cares about pensioners in opposition–but in government he disregards them absolutely. One may think that that was a single lapse but, in case anybody thinks that that is so, let me say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member of the Government who twice held back the Christmas bonus and cut capital spending on the health service. That is his record, and he should be ashamed of it.

    There is another case where the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s actions do not match his words. Today, he again attacked our borrowing levels, but his election promises would have put up borrowing way above the present level. He is still at it. “Let’s spend £6 billion of capital receipts,” says the right hon. and learned Gentleman. “Let’s spend an extra £1.5 billion on public sector pay.” The shadow Chancellor says, “Let’s renegotiate our rebate and pay more to the European Community.”

    Is there any area of Government spending that the Opposition are prepared to cut? Perhaps the shadow Chancellor can tell us. Perhaps we could have another sound bite to tell us where he would find the necessary savings. Or perhaps the deputy leader of the Labour party can tell us; after all, she came into government to implement the cuts in education that her hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) refused to make.

    Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Will my right hon. Friend explain why, if the Opposition are sincerely worried about the disadvantaged people of this country, they demand more and more overseas aid, day in, day out? [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. We all like a little bit of fun and hilarity, but we also want to hear the Prime Minister.

    The Prime Minister : The fundamental point about overseas aid is that, in order to sustain it as the Government have done, one needs to pursue the right economic policies, as we have also done. I am glad that the motion mentions manifesto promises–glad, but a little surprised because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has scrapped all his election promises. We stand by our manifesto policies. We promised action on trade unions, housing, lotteries, railways, education and asylum, and we have kept our promises. Bills on each of those matters have already passed through the House. We promised to uprate pensions and benefits, and we have done so. We promised to maintain child benefit, and we have done so. We promised to increase real resources for the health service, and we have done so; year on year, spending is at record levels. They are the promises we made, and we have kept each one.

    Mr. John Fraser (Norwood) : When the Prime Minister went on his trip down memory lane to Brixton and other ethnic areas, did he tell the people that he was going to take away the right of appeal for visitors?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman knows as well as any hon. Member that the great improvement in race relations in this country is directly related to the firm but fair immigration policies pursued by this Government. I am surprised to hear him venture down that track, in view of his record of favouring good race relations. We promised to deliver low inflation, and we have delivered on that promise. We promised to resume economic growth, and it is now resuming. Inflation, at 1.3 per cent., is at the lowest level for 30 years. Interest rates, at 6 per cent., are the lowest in the Community. There are now too many signs of recovery for even the Opposition to ignore them. Manufacturing output has increased for months in succession and unemployment has fallen three months in a row. It is too high–I share that view–but it is moving in the right direction, and sooner than most people expected.

    It is certainly sooner than the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) expected, because, after the Budget, he said : “I make one Budget forecast–that, after the Budget, unemployment will rise this month, next month and for months afterwards”.–[ Official Report, 17 March 1993 ; Vol. 221, c. 289.] One day later, unemployment fell. The next month, it fell again, and the next month, it fell again. Another sound bite is needed, I think. The recession has been damaging, and recovery has not come easily, but it is now under way– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. Hon. Members must come to order. The bawling and shouting coming from the Back Benches this afternoon is utterly disgraceful. [Interruption.] I know who the Members responsible are, and I need no one to point them out for me.

    The Prime Minister : Some time ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East admitted : “we change our policies as we move towards a different election, we’d be a very foolish Party if we went into an election in 1995-96 with exactly the same policies”. That is certainly true. But whose policies were they? They were the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s. He was the undisputed author of Labour’s defeat. He was the man who drew up the disastrous shadow Budget. Hon. Members may remember the hype, the fake presentation, as if it were a real Budget, and the responsible tone–the right hon. and learned Gentleman even posed for photographs outside the Treasury. Lots of passers-by do that, but they never get into the Treasury. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks of broken promises, as does the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. That is a good sound bite, but for the wrong party. The Labour party has broken every promise that it made about future policy at the election. Every one has gone to the social justice commission. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said : “We must be prepared to examine in an open-minded way some of the fundamental features of our approach. What is the right balance between universal and selective benefits”.

    It was not Milton Friedman who said that, nor my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, nor even Lord Desai–no doubt he would have been sacked if he had said it. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East himself said it. Yet time after time he accuses us of examining aspects of public expenditure that any responsible Government would need to examine. He is the man who said that his planned increases in pensions and child benefits were essential, and that his tax proposals were fair, reasonable and popular. They have been so popular that he has dropped them all. So much for his promises. I would rather listen to the late Robert Maxwell on pension probity than to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

    I know that the exchange rate mechanism and economic and monetary union are matters of some importance to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Since we left the ERM, there has been substantial debate about monetary policy and the possibility of economic and monetary union. In the negotiations at Maastricht I sought and secured an opt-out on the single currency because I was sceptical of its economic impact across Europe and its artificial deadlines, and because I believed that such a decision was for the House to make. Since then, economic developments in the European Community have strengthened the reasons for caution that I set out. The European Community economies have diverged rather than converged. As we come out of recession, our main partners are heading into a recession. Some of our European partners remain keen on early monetary union, although many of their central banks are less keen. Even the keenest must now see the difficulties. The criteria for monetary union will simply not be met. When I was negotiating at Maastricht, the idea of a monetary union in 1997 looked ambitious, perhaps even a little dubious. I have to tell the House that it looks wholly unrealistic today.

    The economies of Europe are not remotely ready for one currency throughout the 12, soon to be 16, countries, and I believe that they will not be ready –if they ever will be–for many years. That is not an anti-European view; I simply do not believe that the economic circumstances will be right, and if they are not right the damage that proceeding would cause the Community would be profound, and I should not wish to see it occur. If some of our partners decided to go ahead prematurely, that would be an economic mistake. I do not believe that we should go with them.

    We have sought reform of the exchange rate mechanism. I make no secret of the fact that I prefer stable exchange rates, and so does industry. But I cannot accept that the present operation of the ERM is satisfactory. Sterling was forced out, in the circumstances described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames, but so was the lira. The franc, the peseta, the escudo, the punt and others have at different times been put under great pressure. Certainly, I could not recommend that sterling return at present. We should need greater convergence between the monetary policies appropriate for all the Community economies, and we should need to be satisfied that the system would be operated to the benefit of all its members.

    In January, I made it clear that those circumstances would not apply this year. I now doubt whether they will apply for some years ahead–possibly they will not apply in this Parliament.

    Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey) : There will be a widespread welcome throughout the party for what my right hon. Friend has just said to the House, and there will be great support for the policies that he has enunciated throughout his speech.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and delighted to have a party at ease with itself. It is clear that the Labour party has no policies at all, and certainly no economic policies. When it had policies, they lost it the election. As the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) put it–rather cruelly, I thought–the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East “bears the primary responsibility for tax and economic policies that lost Labour the election.”

    And now Labour has none. That is not my view alone. It is clearly shared by Mr. Edmonds of the GMB, the union that sponsors the Leader of the Opposition–or at least, it sponsored him until last Sunday. I am not sure whether things have changed since then. Mr. Edmonds says that Labour has an identity problem and asks whether the voters “know what Labour stands for”. He says that Labour must shake itself out of its lethargy. He asks : “Where was the Labour movement” during the past few months? He may well ask.

    The Labour leadership cannot have been examining economic policy, because the shadow Chancellor would not recognise economic policy if it gripped him by the windpipe. The Labour leadership may have been absorbed in its falling membership, or it may have been trying to fight off the defeat of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s party reforms. There is one area of total agreement between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself : he wants one man, one vote–a novel concept for Labour. He is right about that, and he has my support. Unfortunately, he does not have Mr John Edmonds’ support. Mr. Edmonds wants one member, one vote, so long as he can be the member and he, and nobody else, can exercise the vote.

    So long as the Labour party remains subordinate to the trade unions in policy, a paid for and wholly owned subsidiary of the trade unions, Labour Members will sit on that side of the Chamber. I shall tell the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East why he and his party fail to convince even the leader of the union that sponsors him. It is because Labour is a party without policies and without principles that it will remain, in the short and the long term, a party without power.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 8 June 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

    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.

     

    Mr. Ghazanfer Ali

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 April, Official Report, column 195, what further information he has received concerning Ghazanfer Ali and the progress of his case; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 27 May 1993] : The two murder cases involving Mr. Ghazanfer Ali which opened on 13 and 14 March have been further adjourned until 13 and 29 June respectively. We understand from one of Mr. Ghazanfer Ali’s lawyers that no evidence has yet been heard in the case. We understand that the court was ready to record the statement of the respondent at a hearing on 6 June, but witnesses failed to appear in court.

     

    Iraq (Children)

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what response he has given to the report sent to him by Dr. Eric Hoskins, Oxford epidemiologist, commissioned by UNICEF on the children of Iraq.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 7 June 1993] : Dr. Hoskins’s report contains disturbing information about the suffering in Iraq. It reinforces our view that the responsibility for this lies with the Government of Iraq rather than with UN sanctions regime. Baghdad has imposed an internal economic blockade on northern Iraq, and has refused to implement the mechanisms provided under UN Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 for using the proceeds of oil sales for humanitarian needs, such as food and medicines, which are not covered by sanctions.

  • PMQT – 8 June 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 8th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. McKelvey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

    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. McKelvey : Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity in the course of his very busy day yesterday to have a look at Scotland’s national newspaper, the Daily Record, which carried an article stating that the former Chancellor claims that the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister alone, was responsible for imposing VAT on fuel? Did he impose it on his own ; and will he answer without waffle?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question is that in the course of my busy day I certainly did not read the Daily Record. The answer to his second point is that the House of Commons imposed the VAT by its vote.

    Mr. John Carlisle : Is my right hon. Friend aware that a head teacher of a school near my constituency, having received a salary increase that had been denied to several thousand other citizens, wrote to the Secretary of State for Education telling him that he could stuff his pay rise? If head teachers take that attitude and use that sort of language, is it any surprise that they are denying 14-year olds school tests which they themselves would probably fail?

    The Prime Minister : That is an unusual position to adopt on pay rises and not one generally taken by head teachers or by anyone else. I very much regret that there is difficulty carrying these tests forward. They are very much in the interests of the children and it is in the interests of the testing system, which the head teachers support, that the tests should go ahead this year so that Sir Ron Dearing can deal with the difficulties with them.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister tell the House why Ministers in his Administration have seen it as part of their duty as Ministers of the Crown to intervene on behalf of Mr. Asil Nadir, a person charged with serious offences and now a fugitive from justice?

    The Prime Minister : I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given me the opportunity to correct a misassumption in his mind. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office has explained that he raised certain matters with the Attorney-General following an approach from a constituent of his who was then an adviser to Mr. Nadir. My hon. Friend was originally approached 18 months ago, before he became a Minister, and it is perfectly proper within the “Questions of Procedures for Ministers” that Ministers are free to make their views about constituency matters known to the responsible Minister, either by interview or in correspondence. As I understand it, that is what my hon. Friend did.

    Mr. John Smith : Can the Prime Minister confirm that Mr. Nadir is not and was not a constituent of either the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) or the President of the Board of Trade? Is not it strange that a man charged with serious offences should be considered so important that Ministers make personal approaches on his behalf to the Attorney-General, who is responsible for his prosecution?

    The Prime Minister : No doubt in the hubbub, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear what I said to him. I made it clear that my hon. Friend approached the Attorney-General–following an approach from a constituent who was then an adviser to Mr. Nadir–18 months ago. That was entirely proper. Let me equally make it clear– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order and hear both questions and answers.

    The Prime Minister : Let me equally make it clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, so that there is no misunderstanding, that I am assured by my hon. Friend that he has had no financial involvement with Mr. Nadir, his companies or his advisers, either before he became a Minister or since. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he thinks it was appropriate behaviour for a Minister to give a watch to Mr. Nadir inscribed with a very supportive inscription, to put it mildly? Does the Prime Minister think that that is the way that he wants Ministers in his Administration to behave? Was not it bound to undermine the work of the Serious Fraud Office in pursuing financial crime? Is not it the case, as the country clearly understands, that this is a shoddy, unseemly affair that does no credit to this Administration?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was unwise. I think that that is the view taken by my hon. Friend and he has said so in public. I know my hon. Friend recognises that, with hindsight, it would have been better if he had not done it. It was a misjudgment, but it is not a hanging offence.

    Sir Dudley Smith : In view of the experiences of many Warwickshire residents over recent months, particularly in my constituency area, is my right hon. Friend aware that they are looking to him to introduce good and effective legislation to curb the so-called new age travellers? Will he tell us what urgency he is applying to that particular problem?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend raises a problem which has been faced in many parts of the country. It is one that I hope and believe we will be able to deal with in the next Session of Parliament.

     

    Q2. Mr. Khabra : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago.

    Mr. Khabra : Will the Prime Minister personally condemn the speech made by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill)? It has done a great deal of damage to good race relations in this country and it has also encouraged the fascists and racists to indulge in destructive activities. I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to give a positive answer to the community.

    The Prime Minister : Neither of the epithets used by the hon. Gentleman applies to my hon. Friend and I hope that he will recognise that. I have not read all the speech to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I have read some of the reports of it, which I understand were not accurate. On the day that it was published it did not represent my views or those of the Government. My commitment and that of the Government to good race relations is well known. I welcome without reservation the positive contributions which all communities make to life in this country and, as long as we maintain firm but fair immigration controls and refuse to tolerate racial discrimination, we shall keep the race relations which have been steadily improving over recent years, much to my pleasure. I hope and expect them to continue to improve.

     

    Economy

    Q3. Mr. Thurnham : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received about the state of the economy; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I have received a number of representations on the economy. There is growing evidence that recovery is under way across a broad front.

    Mr. Thurnham : Will my right hon. Friend praise north-west exporters such as Rotocold in my constituency, which has gained record export sales and cut local unemployment to below the national average? Is not that in stark contrast to the failed union-dominated policies of the Labour party, which saw unemployment in the north-west double between 1974 and 1979?

    The Prime Minister : That is true. Unemployment is always a tragedy when it occurs and it has occurred under every Labour Government we have seen in this country. I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the company in his constituency. It is good news. I understand that it has had more export orders recently and that will add to jobs in the region. There is no doubt that British manufacturing industry is now exporting at record levels and I welcome that. It is not unrelated to the fact that we now have policies of low inflation, low business taxation and trade union reform which have removed many of the difficulties in management that so bedevilled firms in the 1960s and 1970s.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Byers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

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

    Mr. Byers : Will the Prime Minister say whether he wishes to see shipbuilding continue on Tyneside? If he does, will he confirm that the Royal Navy work presently at Swan Hunter will be completed there and that full Government backing will be given in order to secure vital export orders? Is the Prime Minister aware that if his Government stand to one side and do nothing, we shall witness the death of shipbuilding on Tyneside and the loss of thousands of jobs as a result?

    The Prime Minister : I know of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about Swan Hunter, which are shared by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), all of whom have made representations to me about it in recent weeks. I cannot confirm the details that the hon. Gentleman seeks today, but I hope that the firm will be able to put itself in a position in which it will be able to continue. That depends on its being able to obtain and produce orders at a price that the market will pay.

    Sir Teddy Taylor : As one of the most helpful means of helping the growing army of unemployed in Europe would be to conclude the GATT discussions and as the Prime Minister has played such a positive and helpful role in that, will he explain to the country why the EC is being so difficult about concluding those discussions? It could bring down unemployment and put people throughout Europe back to work.

    The Prime Minister : I think that I have some news that my hon. Friend will undoubtedly welcome. I understand that the French Minister for European Affairs has announced at today’s meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council that France will be accepting the agreement on oil seeds, signed between the European Community and the United States last November. It is an issue which I discussed at my two meetings with the French Prime Minister last month. I am delighted at the decision that has been made. I hope that it will enable the Community to go forward to other agreements relating to the Uruguay round. Although that is a separate issue from the oil seeds agreement, such an agreement was a necessary preliminary. It now removes one of the road blocks to a comprehensive GATT agreement.

     

    Q5. Mr. Beith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

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

    Mr. Beith : Is the Prime Minister beginning to regret that his reshuffle a couple of weeks ago was not more extensive and did not see the departure of Ministers responsible for education, shipbuilding and undue and extensive assistance to those who give large donations to the Conservative party? Does he realise that it is likely that the next reshuffle will involve himself?

    The Prime Minister : The answer to the substantive part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is no.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Lait : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

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

    Mrs. Lait : Will my right hon. Friend remind trade unionists that the hard-won democracy that they have achieved over the past 14 years is thanks to Conservative legislation? Will he tell them that only the Conservative party not only believes in but has legislated for one member, one vote?

    The Prime Minister : It is certainly the case that we have more luck with trade union reform than the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) does.

    Throughout the 1980s the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against each and every one of our reforms to strengthen the rights of individual trade union members and the Labour party still wants to oppose rights for individual trade union members. While Labour Members continue to hold those views we will continue to sit on this side of the House.

    Mr. Hume : Given that this generation is going through the greatest economic revolution in the history of the world–the technological, telecommunications and transport revolutions–and that the wealth of society is being created by fewer people, does the Prime Minister agree that, logically, the state should be taking a greater role in the welfare of people instead of moving in the opposite direction towards the survival of the fittest and the law of the jungle? Given that they have already privatised heat and light, is there any truth in the rumour that the Government are about to privatise fresh air?

    The Prime Minister : I have news for the hon. Gentleman. It is not owned by the Government and does not need privatisation.

    Mr. Hume : What about water?

    The Prime Minister : On his earlier point, the hon. Gentleman clearly overlooked the 67 per cent. real terms increase in social security, the additional uprating next year of £2.5 billion, the extra expenditure on benefits of 40 per cent., the exemption for people who cannot pay council tax, the fact that the Government, unlike our Labour predecessors, continue to pay the pensioners’ bonus and the increase in consumer goods for the bottom 10 per cent. of the income scale. Those changes were made under this Government because of our economic success and social concerns.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 June 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    French Security Services

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to his French counterpart in relation to activities by the French security services in relation to British companies.

    The Prime Minister : It is not Government policy to comment on security and intelligence matters.

     

    UN Conference on Women

    Mrs. Fyfe : To ask the Prime Minister (1) what consultation process has been set up to enable women to make an input to the formal United Kingdom report to be presented at the UN conference on women in 1995; and what sums have been budgeted to encourage full consultation and to inform people of the United Kingdom’s participation;

    (2) if he will make a statement on the implementation in the United Kingdom of the UN convention on the elimination of discrimination against women;

    (3) who is responsible for compiling the formal United Kingdom report to be presented at the UN conference on women in Beijing in 1995; and who will represent the United Kingdom Government at the conference.

    The Prime Minister : The Government will be responsible for compiling the United Kingdom report to the UN world conference on women in 1995. The draft report will be considered by the ministerial sub-committee on women’s issues. Details of the consultation process are being finalised. The views of the Women’s National Commission will be taken into account at an early stage and other organisations will be invited to contribute. The costs of the consultation and information will be absorbed in normal Government expenditure. United Kingdom representation for the 1995 conference has yet to be decided.

    The United Kingdom ratified the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (CEDAW) in 1986 and reports to the UN on its implementation every four years. The second report, made in 1991, was updated in presentation to CEDAW in January 1993. It explained that since ratification we have continued to make much progress in the fields of the articles of the convention. Recent developments contributing to equality include the introduction of the national curriculum, the investment of some £45 million to support child care for school age children, the introduction of targets for action to address health issues that particularly affect women, and action aimed at increasing women’s representation at all levels in public and private employment and the decision-making processes. The United Kingdom has now been able to withdraw two reservations, those relating to the married man’s tax allowance and the employment of women in underground work in mines.

     

    Human Rights (India)

    Ms Walley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the subject of human rights violations with the Vice-President of India during his visit to London; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I raised the subject of human rights in India with the Vice-President of India during my meeting with him on 24 May.

     

    UN Conference on Environment and Development

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what actions have been taken by Her Majesty’s Government in fulfilment of commitments made by the United Kingdom at the United Nations conference on environment and development in June 1992; and if he will place in the Library a report of work undertaken towards meeting those commitments.

    The Prime Minister : The Government are taking a leading role in the follow-up to the conference in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. We have prepared a progress report which we shall be putting to the new United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development before its first meeting later this month. A copy has been placed in the Library.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to arrange for full copies of any statement made by Government Ministers to the Scott inquiry to be placed in the Library.

    The Prime Minister : No. The general rule is that the statements are matters between the individual Minister concerned and Lord Justice Scott.

     

    Northern Ireland

    Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names, in date order, of all those who have died in the United Kingdom and Europe as a result of the troubles in Northern Ireland since 5 October 1968, giving the location in each case.

    The Prime Minister : A comprehensive list of people who have been killed as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, as well as those who have died in related incidents in Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland and, since 1978, in mainland Europe, is currently being compiled and will be placed in the Library in due course. The list will include the cause and location of each death.

     

    Nuclear Industry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce a citizens charter for the nuclear industry.

    The Prime Minister : The nuclear industry sells its products and services to other industries, not directly to the public. There are no plans to introduce charters for industries of this kind.

     

    Arms Exports

    Mr. Spellar : To ask the Prime Minister if he will now make it the policy of the Government to give substantive answers to parliamentary questions relating to the actions of Ministers and officials between 1984 and 1992 in relation to the export of arms to Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : No. These issues are being investigated by Lord Justice Scott, and it would be wrong for the Government to comment on them before publication of his final report.

    Lord Justice Scott is free to call for any papers and to call any Minister or civil servant to give evidence to his inquiry. It is the Government’s policy that all Ministers and officials called to give evidence should co-operate fully. The Government are, therefore, making all the relevant facts available to the inquiry, and it is right that we should wait for Lord Justice Scott to present his conclusions before commenting publicly.

     

    Nuclear Proliferation

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to nuclear proliferation were discussed during his recent visit to Paris.

    The Prime Minister : Nuclear proliferation was not discussed.

     

    European Court of Human Rights

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 May, Official Report, column 372, if Her Majesty’s Government intend to support proposals for a single-tier European Court of Human Rights at the Council of European Heads of State summit in October; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The Ministers’ Deputies Meeting on 28 May agreed by consensus the mandate for a draft protocol amending the control machinery of the European convention on human rights (UCHR). The Council of Europe steering committee for human rights will now draft the amending protocol. The United Kingdom will participate fully in the drafting process. Our position at the heads of state summit in October must depend on progress made by the steering committee.

     

    Regional Development Assistance

    Mr. Wareing : To ask the Prime Minister who will be the United Kingdom’s lead Minister in the discussions on objective 1 status within the European Community.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 27 May 1993] : My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Conservative Party Women’s Conference – 4 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Party Women’s Conference, held in London on 4th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Madam Chairman, it is over 30 years since I joined the Conservative Party.

    I still recall why. Because it was the Party of the individual.

    The Party of the family. It offered choice. It spoke about how people could better what they had.

    How each of us could have more control over our own lives. Build up something more – then leave it to our children. They are simple enough objectives. They are what I believe in. What we all believe in.

    We stand for them as strongly today as we ever did. Individual liberty in everyday matters. That is fundamental to a free society. But that is not the only appeal of our Party.

    We help each generation lay the groundwork for the next. We keep our roots in the past, but we plan far into the future.

    And we have persistence. What we start out we complete – however tough the prospects may look.

    But, Madam Chairman, I don’t need to tell you that. Just remember the last Election. Win it? Many people were telling you that we hadn’t a cat in hell’s chance.

    It would have been easy to give up then – but we didn’t. We didn’t do it then. We haven’t done it since. And, Madam Chairman, we’re not going to do it now. I know it’s not been easy for Conservative supporters. It’s easy to wear the blue rosette the day after an Election win. But it’s not so easy to lift hopes and hearts when things have been difficult.

    But that’s what you all do. That’s what you did last March and April. That’s what you’ve been doing these last few months. And I know how much I owe you.

    Madam Chairman, these have been difficult times for Britain, but things are looking up here now. And don’t let’s forget – as some people too often do. Look around Europe.

    In France, in Germany, in Spain, in Italy – wherever you look – things are worse than they are in Britain. Higher interest rates. Higher inflation. And economies that are shrinking. In Britain the position is changing. We are now out of recession and returning to growth.

    Inflation has fallen: down from around 11 per cent to under 2 per cent.

    Interest rates: down from 15 per cent to 6 per cent.

    Exports: soaring.

    Manufacturing: beginning to re-employ again.

    Over 1000 new businesses are started every day.

    Unemployment has fallen over the last three months and job vacancies have risen.

    Britain is now back into growth. And that is the way to get Britons back into work. Of course we still face problems ahead. As a Nation we are borrowing too much. That is almost inevitable in a recession. The Government’s income falls – fewer people in work means less income tax. Less spending means less VAT and excise duties. Fewer home sales means less Stamp Duty.

    But it is not only that income falls in a recession expenditure increases. Social costs increase to protect the unemployed and others facing difficulty.This too, worsens the public finances. But I know of no Conservative Government that would abandon the vulnerable in a recession.

    Quite simply, that is not our way. So, income down, expenditure up. That is one of the main reasons we are borrowing too much.

    A good deal of our deficit will automatically disappear as we return to growth – the mirror image of what has happened over the last three years.

    In the Budget we set out a clear strategy for raising revenue over the next 3 years. The main task now is to keep a firm grip on public spending to help bring the books back towards balance.

    We must look across Government to see where savings can be made. As we do so we will not forget our Manifesto promises. We will not forget our commitment to the vulnerable – and especially the elderly. Nor will we forget our instincts and priorities as Conservatives.

    Over the next few months you can expect a whole crop of scare stories. Our opponents will be unscrupulous in their willingness to frighten anyone and everyone if they believe it will frighten them into their political camp.

    We have seen it all over the last two years.

    ‘The Government will privatise the Health Service.’ Remember that scare? Untrue.

    ‘The rural Post Office network will close.’ Untrue.

    ‘Pensioners won’t be able to collect their pensions from the Post Office.’ Untrue.

    Three wrongs that were not right. And there’ll be more.

    Be warned. Our opponents will scare and scare and scare again.

    What they will not do is address the reality that – in the interests of the country – we must put the finances in order.

    We have to take a good hard look at public spending – quite apart from the financial pressures of recession.

    Let me tell you why.

    More of our young people are going into further education. We want to encourage that – but it’s very expensive.

    More people are living longer. We want to provide them with the care they deserve – but it’s very expensive.

    Britain needs a modern industrial economy. So our young people need more and better training – but it’s very expensive.

    All are important. But we can’t pile cost upon cost. We have to pick our priorities. More spending somewhere means more savings somewhere else. I know it will be unpopular in the area where savings are found. But – if we are to do what is right for the country – we must do it.

    I believe the British public will understand this.

    They know you can’t spend what you don’t have.

    And all of us have to take that message – uncomfortable as it is – to every constituency in the land.

    Some areas of public expenditure will continue to grow – year by year. We must answer the question – how are we going to meet rising needs without ever higher taxation? I believe the answer lies in policies that will sustain the recovery – low taxes on larger profits and more incomes.

    Madam Chairman, I want our country to be economically powerful again. To build up its industrial and commercial strength. The economic conditions are in place. Now we need to shape policy so that it supports business and allows it to grow.

    Only growth will provide jobs, yield taxes, invade foreign markets, replace foreign imports and boost our prosperity.

    Madam Chairman, I believe the Government does have a role to help industry. It has a responsibility to shape the economy; to keep taxes as low as possible and to produce economic conditions that favour investment. But it can do more than that.

    It can curb unnecessary regulation. And we will do that.

    It can stop costs being loaded on British companies by unnecessary action in Brussels. And we will do that.

    It can help exporters to win in overseas markets with strong support and the full use of British political influence abroad. And we will do that.

    It can produce the reforms that help industry.

    The trade union reforms. The education reforms. The training reforms. And we will do that.

    The economic conditions are in place for growth. Slowly, but certainly, confidence is coming back.

    Confidence to encourage investment.

    Confidence to expand.

    Confidence in our economic prospects.

    That confidence will ripple through the economy – from the greatest companies to the village shop.

    And the sooner it does that, the better it will be for everyone.

    We are now at a turning point. The recession is slipping behind us. Steady growth lies in front of us. And if the OECD and European forecasters are correct, next year Britain will grow faster than any of the leading EC countries.

    They are saying it abroad. So let’s hear it at home. It is time to stop knocking Britain. It is time to talk Britain up – and talk Britons back into work. And it is also time to protect Britain from well-meaning but damaging legislation.

    At Maastricht I refused to accept the Social Chapter. Not because I want to damage workers’ rights. But because I don’t think that being priced out of a job and being made unemployed is much of a right. The Social Chapter loads costs on employers and will cost jobs for employees.

    Throughout Europe over 17 million people are unemployed.

    All Europe competes with the US, Japan, and the Pacific Basin. But if Europe piles costs on itself, it will not be able to compete – and unemployment will rise across the Community.

    Earlier this week, under the provisions of the Single European Act, our European partners were able to agree a directive by a qualified majority vote that tries to change British working practices. I believe their proposals are folly.

    In any event that should be a decision for this country. It should not be a decision made in Europe. So we will fight it politically. And we will take our case to court. Our partners have also proposed the establishment of works’ councils. Let me tell them now. They are wasting their time.

    They need unanimous agreement for that – and Britain will not give it. We have a veto on this issue. And we will use it. But let us not forget that Europe is changing.

    Today’s European agenda is not about federalism, still less about some fanciful “superstate”.

    It is about making Europe competitive; securing a GATT agreement; stimulating growth and jobs building up the single market.

    About decreasing regulation and increasing national decision- making.

    About bringing new members into the Community, and building up links with Eastern Europe.

    These are the realities of life in the Community today. They reflect our ideas. They are good for Europe. And, Madam Chairman, they are good for Britain.

    Madam Chairman, over the last few days I have had the opportunity of reading your paper on crime. It comes at a good moment. Three weeks ago – at the Scottish Conference at Edinburgh – we heard from a very brave woman who spoke about being the victim of a violent crime.

    It was a harrowing account delivered with great dignity. The chances of being a victim may – statistically – be remote. But fear of crime is not remote. It is all too real to too many people. People living on their own. Women. Pensioners. And people living isolated lives in our big city estates.

    That fear limits freedom blights lives and corrodes society.

    How many people here, when they get into the car, press the central locking with their elbow before they drive off?

    Quite a lot, I bet. Across the country millions do. I’ve seen my own family do it.

    How many women think twice before venturing out into their own town or city in the evening?

    We really shouldn’t have to give that a second thought. It cannot be right that people feel so insecure.

    Madam Chairman, we intend to respond to those fears. Of course, we will give the police and courts the powers and support they need to fight crime on our behalf. We are doing that. But that’s only half the equation. The police and the courts can’t do the job on their own.

    The fight against crime – if it is to be successful – must involve us all.

    Parliament can’t solve crime with legislation. Governments can’t solve it just with expenditure.

    Both have a part to play – but it is only a part.

    If we are to have a successful long-term crusade against crime we have to change the general attitude to crime.

    We must end the all too easy tolerance of petty crime – because it breeds an appetite for more serious crime.

    We need to encourage self-discipline. And we need the help of the public.

    Some months ago I said of crime: ‘We must understand a little less, condemn a little more.’

    Some people were outraged. But I wouldn’t change a word of that view.

    If we understand too much we condone.

    If we condone we encourage.

    If we encourage we will not bring down crime.

    In understanding crime you can, literally, kill with kindness.

    Our long-term battle against crime must start in the home.

    We need to teach our children the difference between right and wrong while they’re young. Children need rules. To be shown that life on the right side of the law offers so much more than life on the wrong side. Violence is not a routine part of life. And it should never be portrayed on our videos or television screens as if it were.

    We don’t want our children saturated by violence. We want them to grow up appalled by it.

    Madam Chairman, we will not shrink from taking any necessary steps to combat crime.

    In this session of Parliament we will be taking the action you asked for.

    We will be giving the courts the powers they need.

    Cracking down on arrogant criminals who ask for bail, get it and then commit crime all over again.

    We will be extending the maximum penalties for drunk and dangerous driving.

    And we will let courts take previous convictions into account when passing sentence.

    Madam Chairman, that is just the beginning of the changes to come.

    Next year Michael Howard will make the battle against crime the centre-piece of our legislation.

    We’ll be acting on criminal justice.

    And we’ll be acting to strengthen and to modernise the police.

    We will be developing new institutions for young offenders – so that they’re where they belong – off the streets.

    We will be tackling those so-called ravers, squatters and new age travellers, who treat other people’s property as if it were the municipal rubbish dump.

    And, yes, we will be clamping down more comprehensively than ever before on fraud in the social security system.

    If there are to be cuts in expenditure, let the first cut be fraud.

    We will also reform the police. We have the men and women we need – but all too often they are having to spend time sitting in offices filling in forms.

    We want them out of offices, catching those who have form. That’s what our new plans are about. That’s what we want.

    And isn’t that what the people of this country want too?

    Madam Chairman, the whole country will agree we need to tackle crime. But they won’t all agree about tackling some of the other problems in front of us.

    I know what many of our supporters are saying. ‘Why can’t they leave well alone? Why are they always changing things?’ I understand that. No one likes change for its own sake.

    That’s normal; that’s Conservative. It’s an everyday instinct.

    And it’s my instinct, too.

    But when I see something wrong then, yes, I do want to change it. To change it for the better – and change it for good.

    Continuity and change weave together into the living tradition of modern Conservatism.

    Continuity of institutions is the bedrock upon which we can make changes elsewhere.

    Above all, there is the continuity of the Monarchy.

    Forty years ago this week, the nation celebrated the coronation of our Queen. Millions lined the streets and millions watched on flickering black and white televisions. I know that I did.

    Britain is a constitutional monarchy. And I for one hope and believe it always will be.

    The Church, the State, Parliament – all help provide solid anchors for our way of life.

    So does our language – the richest in the world. So does our evolving way of life in town and village that provides a comforting mixture of the old, the familiar, and the new.

    These are lasting things, living things that evolve and do not change dramatically. And nor would we want them to. Yet, at the same time, we enforce change elsewhere.

    We promote it. We deliver it. But only where necessary.

    Not change for change’s sake.

    Madam Chairman, one area we do need change is education.

    I’ll tell you why. A third of those going on to training courses needed remedial help with English. Two in every five need basic help with numbers to get through their courses. One adult in six has problems with skills which can be tackled by a well-taught 9-year old.

    Yet, Madam Chairman, how can this be?

    How can this be when we are spending more public money per pupil than ever. Half as much again as we spent in 1979?

    Something is clearly wrong.

    Yet that is the reality in some classrooms.

    I don’t regard these bad results just as statistics. They tell us about children who don’t reach their potential.

    About opportunities lost.

    They tell us something too about the effect of lack of discipline.

    About the blind eye turned to truancy.

    Madam Chairman, that does mean change.

    To opt for the quiet life in education would be to accept the second-rate. Frankly, we’re not prepared to do that. For the worm is in the apple. And it’s time to face this problem square on.

    That does not mean we want a battle with teachers. We do not. We want to work with teachers.

    Few jobs carry greater responsibility than that of the teacher.

    The future of our country is shaped in our schools.

    The prospects for millions of lives are determined there.

    The overwhelming majority of teachers are dedicated and able – and we must help them.

    I am determined to see the high professional standing of teachers restored.

    That is why two years ago I gave teachers a Review Body on pay – to emphasise their professionalism and importance.

    I want teachers who are working day after day to help their pupils to know that the Government will support them.

    And I want them to know something else.

    Some of the tests are too bureaucratic. And I want them slimmed down.

    We are going to take some of the burden off their backs. It crept in – and we must remove it.

    There is strong support for a national curriculum in schools. We want to see greater emphasis on the basics. So, I believe, do parents.

    That’s why we must monitor every stage of a child’s progress at school. And that means tests. And that is why we are insisting on the publication, school by school, of exam results, testing scores, and truancy rates.

    Those who want to hide this information are quite wrong. Parents and public have the right to informed choice. They need to be able to judge how their schools are performing. Those performance tables are crucial – and they are here to stay. And in case there be any doubt, let me be crystal clear about some of the things I want to see.

    More attention to the basics of reading, writing and maths for our 5-7 year aids.

    Experienced people who are good with children coming into the profession.

    Children introduced to subject teaching and timetables at an earlier stage.

    And simple pencil and paper tests to find out what each pupil has learned – and what he has not.

    I want to see schools developing pride in the traditions and achievements of Britain – it is nonsense to have a history curriculum that is strong on the Aztecs but doesn’t mention Nelson or Wellington.

    I want to see truancy and absences cut back.

    Homework set and marked.

    Gifted children and those with learning difficulties stretched to their limits. And I want to see teacher training courses concentrating on subject knowledge, with experience of how to teach learnt where it can be learned best – in the schools. And, Madam Chairman, that will be the objective of teacher training reforms which we shall bring forward for next year’s programme for Parliament.

    People say there is too much jargon in education – so let me give you some of my own.

    Knowledge. Discipline. Tables.

    Sums. Dates. Shakespeare.

    British history.

    Standard English. Grammar.

    Spelling. Marks. Tests.

    And, Madam Chairman, good manners – good manners are important for children.

    But children learn by example.

    So good manners are important for headteachers as well.

    Madam Chairman, it won’t be easy.

    Our education reforms were never going to be plain sailing all the way.

    Our goals are clear.

    To put in place a high quality education system.

    To bring the best out of the skills of our teachers.

    To meet the needs of all children, whatever their abilities and wherever they live.

    To be on the side of pupils and parents.

    Nothing – and no-one – will deflect us from that task.

    Madam Chairman, I’ve spoken about the prospects for the economy. The need to control public expenditure. Tackle crime. Continue with our reforms on education.

    All of this falls within a classic Conservative agenda. Whatever we do we need to remember always that at the other end of our policies – are people.

    People with their own ambitions and their own hopes.

    They are not always grand ambitions.

    But we should always remember that a private triumph for a private man is as important to him as a public triumph for a public man.

    Our job is – wherever we can – to help everyone meet their ambitions – not stand in their way.

    But, Madam Chairman, one of the glories of our country is that people’s ambitions are not always for themselves. Often they are for others.

    At the beginning of the year I issued a call for more recognition of voluntary effort. We in government are looking actively at how we can promote and add value to the work that is done. And we have announced already that those who give of themselves for others will gain a more prominent place in our system of honours.

    We are a caring country. That is true of individuals – and it’s also true of industry. We should not forget the great part that British industry plays in voluntary support. There are those who talk glibly of the selfishness of capitalism.

    Frankly they don’t understand it.

    It is high time we heard more about the huge contribution of private enterprise to our national well-being.

    Not just in the goods it produces – or the jobs it creates.

    But in sponsorship, gifts, secondments, administrative help, and joint ventures with private voluntary groups.

    This private sector contribution grows year on year. Capital and charity hand in hand.

    Help worth over £200 million last year from just 216 companies in one survey.

    Giant contributions to health, education, sport and the arts.

    There are some who say news must reflect reality.

    Well, there’s some good news about Britain. Caring people. And caring capitalism.

    That is the reality – it would be nice to hear it in the news.

    Madam Chairman, Britain’s prospects for the future are looking up.

    Our economy is strengthening, our place in Europe secure.

    And as prosperity grows, so too will confidence and trust return.

    A country fashioned by the craft and skills of its people.

    One in which every person feels – heart and soul – that they belong.

    In whose prosperity all have their own personal share.

    People ask what we stand for. That, Madam Chairman – that is what we stand for.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Anglo-French Relations – 28 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Anglo-French relations, made during an interview held in Paris on Friday 28th May 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the UK and France were becoming closer].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Our relationship with Paris has been improving over some years and I am very pleased about that. It is very good now. I think the relationship between the United Kingdom and France is as good at the moment as I can remember for very many years and I am delighted at that and I wish to see the extent to which we can extend that. I know that is the Prime Minister’s view; it is also the President’s view and a matter we have discussed in the past, so I’m very pleased with the relationship. It is good and it is getting better.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it was easier with a French Conservative Prime Minister].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am very much at ease with Prime Minister Balladur. I was very much at ease with his predecessors as well. Pierre Beregovoy in particular was a friend of mine and so I was very much at ease with him.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked in what areas could the French and British work closer together].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think across a whole range of issues. We have discussed this morning areas where we might do work to examine the common position in the interests of the European Community as a whole. We are looking together for example at subsidiarity, what it means, how to develop it, where to apply it. Certainly, we have a joint interest as members of the Security Council – the Permanent Five – a whole range of issues there where I wish to work very closely with France. In terms of defence co-operation, France and the United Kingdom are the only two nuclear powers in Western Europe so we have a very real series of areas where we need to work very closely and that is what we are seeking to do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Anglo-French relationship would become as strong as the Anglo-German relationship].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are not seeking to change in any way the relationship between Paris and Bonn. It is very close, it is very good, it is historical and it is a good thing for the whole of Europe, but I am seeking to make sure that we have a very close relationship as well with Paris and also with Bonn. I think that is in the interest of the Community.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought the French would agree to sign the GATT agreement on agriculture].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there was great progress made amongst the agriculture ministers the other day and I congratulate all of them on the part they played in ensuring that happened. It looks to me like a very balanced agreement. It has to be confirmed in the next few days – I think early in June – and I very much hope that it is. I think that does help us move towards an agreement on the Uruguay Round as a whole though there are still many obstacles to overcome. Some of those obstacles of course don’t relate to the Community, don’t relate to agriculture. There are problems to be overcome for example with Japan and American problems as well but I think it is a step forward and I welcome that.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with M Balladur – 28 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the French Prime Minister, M Balladur, held in Paris on Friday 28th May 1993.

    M. BALLADUR:

    [Spoke in French]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prime Minister, I would simply wish to echo what you have said over the last few moments. We have had the opportunity over the last couple of hours of covering a very wide range of matters, bilateral matters, some quite detailed matters, some matters with a very long term concern indeed. We had the opportunity of looking in particular at the Copenhagen summit, not very far away now, and what we might seek to achieve there. We have looked at problems we wish to address together like subsidiarity. We discussed the desirability of a GATT settlement and some of the difficulties that have arisen there, and we looked of course at the problems there have been in Bosnia upon which our two governments have taken a very similar view from the beginning and in which of course both of our governments have committed quite substantial numbers of troops.

    That is by no means an inclusive list of the matters we discussed. A good part of our discussion were not matters requiring immediate decisions today, they were looking at problems and difficulties and opportunities that lie on the horizon both in the short and the long term and deciding how we might work jointly to seek to address those particular problems.

    I think the Prime Minister might agree with me in saying that the relationship and the extent of bilateral cooperation that exists at the moment between the United Kingdom and France is as good, if not better, as it has been for many years and I personally am delighted about that and very pleased to have had the opportunity of continuing our discussions this morning.

    QUESTION:

    Have your talks touched upon the question of the Exchange Rate Mechanism and whether by appointing a pro-European Chancellor that improves the chances of Britain re-entering the ERM?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did discuss the monetary affairs across Europe this morning, yes we did discuss that for a while. The government’s position on the Exchange Rate Mechanism was set out some time ago by Norman Lamont, that remains the position. The circumstances for Britain to re-enter the Exchange Rate Mechanism do not exist at the moment, they do not exist in terms of the relationship between British and German monetary policy and are unlikely to do so in the near future. That point was made quite clear by Norman Lamont, it has been made clear in the past by Ken Clarke and others, and it is the government’s collective position.

    QUESTION:

    If the policy has not changed, why has the Chancellor?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have a full press conference this afternoon and I will address domestic issues on that occasion, not now.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but about the social chapter]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I argued against the social chapter in the Maastricht Treaty not just on behalf of my country but on behalf of all the European countries. And I did so for reasons that are as relevant today, if not more relevant, than the reasons when I discussed them in Maastricht. Firstly I believe that some of the provisions of that chapter would destroy jobs and not create them, and we had then, as we have now, a very high level of unemployment across the whole of Europe; and secondly, because we cannot just look at the situation within Europe, Europe has to compete with the United States, with Japan and with the Pacific countries. If Europe has costs upon their employers and consequently therefore costs upon the products that they produce, they will render themselves; less competitive with Japan, the United States and the Pacific Basin, and that will cost further jobs in Europe. And it was upon those bases that I argued against the social chapter. We have differing views in the European Community about this and I respect the views of my European partners, but those are the views I held then and hold now.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but about the situation in the former Yugoslavia]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I read when I flew in yesterday evening the remarks by M. Juppe on the question of former Yugoslavia and I endorse exactly what he said, the position and concerns that we have expressed in the United Kingdom are very closely mirrored in France and the Prime Minister and I hold very similar views about them.

    QUESTION:

    On Bosnia have you, the French and the rest of the Western allies come to the conclusion that the Serbs have won the war and if you have not come to that conclusion what are you going to do to roll back their lands gained by force?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have made it clear right from the start that we do not accept Serbian gains by force, that was made clear by the Foreign Ministers again just a few days ago, we do not accept Serbian gains by force. But you have to address the question that M. Juppe put yesterday: are you prepared to put 200,000 troops into Bosnia in order to force them back by force of arms? And we know the answer to that, people are not prepared to do that, but we will maintain sanctions, we will maintain diplomatic pressure and we will not accept the land gained by force.

    M. BALLADUR:

    [Spoke in French]

    QUESTION:

    [In French]

    M. BALLADUR:

    [Spoke in French]

    QUESTION:

    Could you spell out what you hope to achieve at the Copenhagen summit and what your discussions this morning touched on about that matter?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can spell out some of those things, certainly. We will clearly want to discuss the particular economic problems that exist within the European Community, the problems of unemployment in particular at the Copenhagen summit, that would be our wish and I think it will be the wish of all our partners as well. We will want to look in some detail at how we carry forward the proposals on subsidiarity, work is proceeding on that at present, we would like to see that work carried forward. We will certainly wish to carry forward the discussions on enlargement of the Community and precisely what that may mean. Those are some of the detailed matters, by no means all, but they are some of the detailed matters we discussed this morning.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you what assurances you were able to give M. Balladur about the future economic policy of Britain, whether there would be any change and how it will affect the preparations for Copenhagen?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set out our economic policy about the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which I assume is what you have in mind, a few moments ago, it has not changed in those few moments, it is as it was and as it will remain.

    QUESTION:

    And has it changed since 24 hours ago?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I just said no.

    QUESTION:

    With a new Chancellor can the British expect accelerated interest rate cuts?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No British Prime Minister or Chancellor discusses interest rate policy and monetary policy on occasions like this and I have no intention of starting now. As ever, we will take the right judgments on the basis of what is necessary for the British economy in terms of the inflation prognosis, that is what we have done in the past under previous Chancellors, it is what we are doing now, it is what we will do in the future.

    M. BALLADUR:

    [In French]

    QUESTION:

    We have witnessed some gradual changes in the British position on the Uruguay Round in the last few weeks, could we have your comments on the style and substance of these moves?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I welcomed what was agreed the other day in the Agriculture meeting, we have to see what happens when we come to the further meeting at the beginning of June, but I have nothing further to say about the Uruguay Round as a whole, I hope we will be able to reach a satisfactory agreement on the Uruguay Round, I think that is in everyone’s interest and I think that is generally agreed.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Paris – 28 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Paris on Friday 28th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I just want to make a few introductory remarks and then I think we can really begin by taking the questions that concern you and I will attempt to answer them.

    I came here this morning at the invitation of the President of the Republic who very generously gave me lunch. President Mitterrand of course has been the longest serving French President for over a century and as such he is listened to with very great respect and I greatly enjoyed my meeting with him again today.

    I began the day earlier this morning with extensive talks with Prime Minister Balladur whom I had reacquainted when he came to dinner at Downing Street three weeks or so ago, we did of course know one another from the time we were both Finance Ministers some years ago.

    I also had the opportunity this morning of a meeting with President Giscard d’Estaing, who flew in from Strasbourg, and we were able to spend an hour or so together just before lunch.

    In each of those meetings we covered broadly similar, not identical, but broadly similar agendas. We looked at cooperation between Britain and France in international affairs, we looked at some of the main points on the European agenda and perhaps in particular the agenda that lies immediately in front of us on the Copenhagen summit, the Anglo-French bilateral that I will refer to in a few moments, and of course the European interest in the G7 summit at Tokyo later on in the summer.

    Let me make one or two general points. The first point I make is one that I make with a great degree of pleasure, and it is this. There is at the moment a great deal of common ground between people and politicians in France and the United Kingdom, and indeed in Germany and other member states, on the future of the European Community. I welcome that, I think there is an increasing concordat on many of the things we need to do in the Community and I think that is thoroughly welcome. The Community went through a period in the second half of the 1980s when there was very dramatic growth right the way across Europe. Subsequently the growth across Europe has fallen away and many of the difficulties that people have faced economically in countries right the way across the Community, international events that have swept right across the continent, have often been blamed, in many cases unfairly, on the specific activities of the Community itself.

    The second point I want to make is that I cannot myself recall a time when the relationship between the United Kingdom and France has been in better shape than it is at present. In many areas we have similar policies, we work together, we complement each other, we have joint interests. That is very welcome and I think we should maximise those joint interests in the interests of France and in the interests of the United Kingdom and both the President, the Prime Minister and I are determined that we will make the most of that.

    Of course between neighbours there are areas where we have a different shade of view, areas where there are disagreements. That I think is inevitable between neighbours and where that happens we get a great degree of publicity about it. But when one looks beyond those occasional matters, people perhaps take for granted the fact that millions of French and British visit one another each year, live and work in one another’s countries, build ships, cars, aeroplanes together as joint ventures. All that is happening and I welcome it very much indeed.

    I think they forget also that we work together, Britain and France, in a unique relationship as members simultaneously of the European Community, the Group of Seven and the United Nations Security Council. That is a very vivid illustration of the extent of common interest that exists between Britain and France and the extent to which we do work together and need to work together in the future. I think people even take for granted the fact that we are now joined by the Channel Tunnel – a massive joint engineering triumph.

    I have spent today discussing a range of matters with the President and the Prime Minister, they have not been discussing principally points of disagreement but points of agreement, points of how to develop policy further between us. we have had intensive discussion on how we can work together on issues of great importance to both of us, how to promote subsidiarity, that is to say the transfer of authority from the Community level back down to the nation state, how to promote enlargement of the Community to bring in the EFTAn states and in due course the central and Eastern European states, how to develop a closer relationship with Eastern Europe at the Copenhagen Council and how to cooperate even more closely in foreign policy, in defence and in security matters. So today has not been a day for short-term decisions but for long term planning about how to develop our joint interests together.

    Mainly because of the electoral calendar, France and Britain have not had a formal full dress British/French summit since June 1991. But I can tell you today that I have invited the President and the Prime Minister to come with a team of senior colleagues to a summit meeting in London in July. It will be held on 26 July when we will have a very extensive agenda to cover.

    I should also tell you that we have agreed this morning that the British Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, and M. Juppe will be meeting next week in order to take further the Washington agreement on Bosnia that was concluded just a few days ago.

    So those are broadly the areas we have been discussing this morning, I will not go into detail, you may well wish to ask me details and as far as I can I will respond to that, but those are the general areas we have been discussing this morning and I think it has been a very useful series of exchanges.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Associated Press):

    Today Alain Juppe has said that France has submitted a proposal to the United Nations calling for peace-keepers to be able to use force in Bosnia, what is your reaction to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well that is one of the things that Douglas Hurd will be discussing with Alain Juppe next week. The British and the French position on Bosnia has been astonishingly close right from the outset of this whole affair, our analysis of the problem has been close, our commitment to put troops on the ground has been close, our commitment and determination on sanctions and other matters has been close and our general reading of the problem has been close. We propose to liaise with Alain Juppe about this matter and I hope we will be able to reach a concordat, that meeting will take place next week.

    QUESTION:

    There are two known areas where there is a degree of disagreement between France and Britain, two known areas connected in part with the European Community, the first is the social aspect by which I mean Britain’s known refusal to accept the social facet of the building of Europe and the second is connected to the GATT negotiations, are the British and French positions getting closer together or are they still as far apart?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think understanding of the positions is certainly getting greater in both those instances. If I can say a word about the social aspect of Europe, the social structure and in particular the social charter which presumably is what you have in mind rather than the other social elements of the Community. If you mean the other social elements, the British contribution to them and the British acceptance to them is as great as any other country in Europe. But if you mean the social charter, it is certainly true that we do not favour the social charter, not as a position of ideology, I believe the social charter is mis-named.

    It has a nice friendly ring if you call it the social charter. If you were to call it a potential job destruction charter I do not suppose it would be as popular across Europe and yet that is what I believe it to be. We in Britain have a different social structure from some of our partners in Europe and clearly therefore we have a different perspective on the social charter.

    But let me put the point specifically about the social charter. The social charter will add to the employment costs of people in Europe. If it adds to the employment costs it must mean one thing above all, there will be less jobs in Europe. We have between 17 and 18 million European citizens unemployed. I just ask the question: is it sensible when you have 17 – 18 million citizens unemployed, to add to the social costs of employment? I think you will just add to the number of people who are unemployed. That is the first point and the first reason that Britain opposes the social charter.

    The second reason is a European reason as well. Europe as a whole, all of it, faces much greater competition these days with Japan, with the United States, with the countries of the Pacific Basin. In a shrinking world for trade purposes we have to compete against those countries. If we, right the way across Europe, add to the social costs of employment and production we will diminish our capacity to win in those markets of the world, we will pile social costs on our employers and we will lose their markets to the Japanese, to the Americans and to the Pacific Basic countries.

    And I ask again: is that a sensible thing to do with 17 – 18 million Europeans unemployed? I have to tell you bluntly that I do not think it is sensible and it was for that reason that I argued so strongly at the Maastricht Council for Europe as a whole not to adopt the social charter, I do not want to see Europe as a whole put itself at a disadvantage to the rest of the world and I believe that is what it is doing and I believe you see that in unemployment right the way across Europe. It is emphatically not a question of saying let us not give new rights to workers. It emphatically is a question of saying let us get more workers back into jobs that they can stay in because the European industries can compete. That is why I argued against the social charter in Maastricht, why I would not accept it in Maastricht and why I still say for Britain and for Europe it is wrong, it is a disadvantage, the time for it is not yet right.

    On GATT, I very much want to see an agreement on the Uruguay Round, it has to be a fair agreement, I understand the difficulties that France faces. The GATT agreement extends across the whole range of industry and commerce, agriculture where I understand the difficulties in France, but there are many other industrial and other areas where a GATT agreement is very much in favour of Western Europe, very much in favour of jobs in Western Europe, prosperity in Western Europe, growth in Western Europe. And we have to find a way through this GATT tangle to reach a satisfactory settlement I believe within the terms of this year.

    If I may offer you a second reason for pushing ahead for a GATT agreement it would be this. What is one of the characteristics of Britain and France? One of the characteristics of both our countries is that we are very generous with overseas aid to countries with whom we have had a long-standing relationship. We are prepared to use a great deal of money from our own taxpayers’ revenue in order to assist those countries with direct aid.

    What on earth, what on earth is the purpose of giving them aid with one hand and not agreeing a GATT agreement that opens our markets to their products with the other? It is counter-productive. We may salve our consciences by giving them aid and we leave them in a position where they are a perpetual recipient of aid whilst denying them the opportunity of coming into our markets and make their prosperity, on their terms, for their future.

    Unusual for politicians to talk about morality maybe these days but I do not believe that is a moral policy and I think we should seek a GATT agreement for that reason. There are difficulties still in reaching a GATT agreement, they are not just French difficulties, I know France has difficulties with the Blair House Agreement, other countries have difficulties as well, the Japanese have difficulties, the Americans have difficulties with different aspects of the deal. I simply say that we need to continue to talk. Year after year we have gone to the G7 or some other great conference of Heads of Government and collectively agreed that we were going to have a Uruguay Agreement by the end of the year and year after year it has failed. I just think it is time that we actually reached a conclusion. It will to a greater or lesser extent be uncomfortable for all of us, including my country, but when you look at the recessionary situation around the world, particularly in Western Europe, and one looks at the difficulties that need to be faced, I think we all have to enter those talks with the determination of making them succeed. And in saying that I do not for a second under-estimate the difficulties that face France, I understand them, I just say collectively we must look and see how those can be solved across agriculture and elsewhere.

    QUESTION (David Buchan, Financial Times):

    Just two questions, one to follow up on GATT. Prime Minister Balladur said that you had agreed that your officials should put their heads together to try and advance agreement on GATT. Was that his initiative and what concretely would that mean? Would it be mainly focused on the agricultural side where he complimented Mr. Gummer’s help?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It followed on from the co-operation at the Agriculture Council that led to the agreement – which I hope will soon be clear is genuinely an agreement on oil seeds – just the other day. There was a great deal of Anglo-French co-operation. It advanced a cause that seemed lost.

    Maybe we can extend that co-operation in other ways. There is, as I indicated at the outset, a good deal more Anglo-French bilateral work on a range of subjects than most people perhaps realise and what we want to do is to look at the component parts of GATT. You can’t agree GATT by talking in generalities; you have to get down to the specifics. This is a “nuts and bolts” agreement. Everyone, to a greater or lesser extent, is hurt by the GATT agreement in one form or another. We need to look at those sore points and see whether we can find a way round them and I have great admiration for the diplomatic and political skills of the French and I believe we have quite a lot to offer in that respect as well so all we have agreed over our meeting this morning – and it followed on from the agriculture meeting – is that we will look together at these problems and see if we can identify a way ahead. we are not seeking a bilateral fix. Let me make that clear. We are pooling our resources to see how we can advance the general trend towards a satisfactory agreement.

    QUESTION (David Buchan, Financial Times):

    A quick follow-up: Prime Minister, you talked about this being a day for long-term planning. If this Anglo-French rapprochement were to continue until 1996, which is perhaps rather an ambitious hope, would you hope that in that year when there is supposed to be another intergovernmental conference in the Community, that this would help shape the agenda for that conference?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know why you think 1996 is an ambition. Unfortunately it is the disagreements that are magnified and the agreements that are not magnified but we have actually been working together for generations. I know British and French attitudes are perhaps marked by William the Conquerer coming over to Britain with a certain degree of malice aforethought and Henry II coming to France to conquer half the country and marry the rest but that was, frankly, rather a long time ago and we have been working together across a whole range of issues.

    The rapprochement will go on. We have a mutuality of interests. That is real politics apart from the fact that it is something we would both wish to do. What that doesn’t mean is that we are going to agree on every subject – of course it doesn’t. There are even disagreements sometimes within individual countries as we have all seen. Of course there will be disagreements but the determination to look where we can at areas of common interest and see a way ahead I think will continue up to and way beyond 1996 and of course we will be discussing with our friends in Paris and also other friends in the Community what the agenda should be for the next intergovernmental conference. We are working on that subject now and I believe everybody else will be too.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, it seems in fact that you have now a new relationship between Paris and London and mainly on the question of Europe and the shape of Europe. Could you give us some details of that? M. Balladur this morning said that the two administrations will work closely now.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You are wrong in thinking it is just European matters, it isn’t.

    There is a good degree of co-operation in international affairs, Bosnia for example, Russia for example; all the matters that go through the Security Council at the United Nations, the subject of increasing bilateral discussions between the United Kingdom and France. There is a very close defence relationship; we have worked together on a variety of defence projects; that remains the case; it will remain the case in the future. Britain and France are the only two nuclear powers in Western Europe. There is a good deal of collective work that we have done on that so there is a whole range of issues. The Channel Tunnel is a very practical expression of that.

    It isn’t just the development of the Community. Both France and Britain must work to a greater or lesser extent with all our Community partners on that but it is across a wide range of issues that we are seeking to develop perhaps further than it has gone before the relationship that exists between France and Britain.

    Of course it involves European matters. We are both keen on making sure we get the right extension of the European Community, that we have the right arrangements when the new countries come into the European Community, that we look collectively at what actually happens after the 1996 meeting that we will have to refresh Europe and move forward. Of course we are looking together at all those things. We both have a very direct interest in it.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, one of the fruits of Anglo-French co-operation has been this Washington agreement. This agreement has been rather received by the other European partners on two levels: one is that it is a way of promoting a kind of apartheid or bantostar in Bosnia; the second is that they didn’t like hearing about it on the radio without any prior consultation. We are talking about common foreign and defence policy. How do you react to this criticism to the Washington agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think a good deal of the criticism of the Washington agreement has been very ill-informed, to be blunt. The Washington agreement is an action plan. The Washington agreement is not a settlement that freezes the Serb gains and says they can keep them. It emphatically is not that. It is an action plan about how in practical terms we can develop policy. The objective of making sure that sanctions continue and that other policies continue until such time as the Serbs disgorge their gains continues so there is no change in that as Douglas Hurd has made clear, as M. Juppe has made clear. What it is is a practical way in which to proceed.

    As to the concerns of other European members, what they agreed there was entirely in line with previous discussions there had been amongst the Twelve so I think the criticism that we have heard from that quarter is more based on inaccurate reports than accurate substance. I reiterate the point: emphatically not a settlement; emphatically not rewarding the Serbs for the present position; emphatically making it clear that this is the way that it is practicable to proceed in the short-term and that in the long-term we do not expect and do not wish the Serbs to keep their ill-gotten gains and that diplomatic and political pressure, sanctions pressure, is expected to continue and will have the full support of the British and French perhaps for a very long time ahead.

    QUESTION (Nelson Grays, Reuters):

    Could you tell us exactly how France and Britain could strengthen their relations in the military realm and especially as regards nuclear?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Nuclear is more delicate for me to discuss here and we will need to have a great deal of discussion about that but we have had a good deal of military co-operation on the construction of military equipment and other matters in the past.

    As military demands change – and they are changing at the moment in the 1990s – we may increasingly have to look across the Western European Union, across NATO, making sure that nations do most what they do best and that does mean we have a particular responsibility to look between Britain and France in the interests of Western Europe in particular at their contribution to NATO, at the right degree of co-operation between them. Joint exercises are the sort of thing we have done for a long time; the possibility of constructing joint frigates. These are all matters of co-operation that would be both in our military interest and very probably, subject to examination, in our financial interest as well and those are the sort of things we will wish increasingly to examine.

    QUESTION:

    You said that you had met with Prime Minister Balladur and indeed then with President Francois Mitterrand and I would like to know your views of this peculiarly French phenomenon known as “cohabitation”.

    Secondly, regarding Franco-British economic co-operation, you know that the Channel Tunnel is of signal importance to France and to the French. I would like to know what Britain’s intentions are in that connection and in particular mention has been made of the possibility of France even investing in British railway networks.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As far as cohabitation is concerned, I don’t find that a strange prospect at all. The Conservative Party have been cohabitating on the Maastricht Treaty for the last few months so I see no particular difficulty in the cohabitation you have had in France.

    On the question of the tunnel and the development of railway networks, we have decided that we will develop the railway network. I know President Mitterrand indicated delicately and with great charm that our trains might go a little more slowly perhaps than his. I would simply say we have some very lovely country to look at while they go slowly and I look forward to the development of those trains between now and the turn of the century and I am very delighted the decision has been made that we will proceed with the development.

    I wasn’t aware of the suggestion of French investment in those railways but perhaps that is a suggestion that has been made this side of the Channel rather than the other side.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant):

    You said this morning that there will be no change in the government’s approach both to the ERM and to possible future cuts in interest rates but if there has been no change in economic policy and if that is not your intention, why did you change the Chancellor and what did you make of the fact that he did not send you a traditional resignation letter?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The position on economic policy generally has been set out quite clearly and that doesn’t change with a change of personnel. It is no more likely to do that than the government’s desire for a home-owning democracy which has been there for generations will have changed with successive Environment or Housing Ministers; of course it doesn’t change.

    The policy carried out by the Chancellor is the government’s policy, has been and remains the government’s policy. It has been set out and articulated by Chancellors – very well articulated by Norman Lamont – and endorsed before he became Chancellor by Kenneth Clarke. That continues.

    It is always necessary from time to time to refresh a government, to change it round, to put the right people in the right jobs, to push forward the agenda for the next few years, to make sure that is done as effectively as possible and that is the purpose of any reshuffle not least this one.

    Secondly, as to why particularly now: we are about to begin discussions that move towards the first unified budget, a very dramatic change in British budgetary procedures, and it is necessary to have a new Chancellor in place to see that right the way through the preparation and presentation in November of the first unified budget. It takes a lot of work, it takes a lot of decision and it seemed therefore the right time to do it before those discussions actually commence.

    The third reason of course is that I have in my Party a lot of talented people who have not yet served in government, who have a great deal to offer my country, who deserve the chance actually to serve in government. I wanted to bring those into the government as well as giving a lot of Ministers outside the Cabinet predominantly, but some inside the Cabinet, the chance to widen their experience and look at other portfolios. I think it is in the general interest to make sure that they do that, that they have the widest possible experience because I think that helps in conducting policy in the particular Department in which they have responsibility.

    Those essentially are the reasons for the reshuffle.

    Regarding the letter, I think that is a matter for Norman but I don’t think it can be very surprising, can it? I know Norman very well. He is a good friend of mine, he has been a good friend of mine for a very long time. We have worked closely together, we have shared the same policies, we have shared the same hopes, we have shared the same dreams about getting inflation down. He has taken a great deal of criticism as Chancellor – as any Chancellor of the Exchequer would have had to do over the last two years. He has taken very bravely with a great degree of courage a great degree of criticism. The fact that it has been necessary to make a change I understand must be very hurtful to him. Even politicians are human. I quite understand the fact that he wants a little bit of peace and quiet at the moment and I hope he’ll get it.

    QUESTION:

    Could I just ask whether you have a feeling of relief now that you have finally got what must have been a reluctant reshuffle out of the way and will your new Chancellor now have the option of considering possible changes in Norman Lamont’s last budget and specifically the VAT on home heat fuel?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t anticipate the present Chancellor changing what was in the budget that was approved by the Cabinet of which he was a member. I don’t anticipate changes in that regard, no.

    With regard to the sense of relief, tomorrow is always more important than yesterday. There are difficult decisions, difficult things to be done every day. There have been in the past. I have no doubt there will be other difficult decisions next week, next month and the month after – that is the business of government.

    QUESTION (Libby Viner, ITN):

    I would just like to ask the Prime Minister in what way you think Norman Lamont’s departure will restore credibility to your government if in fact he was following exactly the same policies that the government as a whole wanted to follow including yourself?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is necessary sometimes to refresh the look of the government, to have a fresh face to look at things, to move the agenda forward. If one didn’t do that, one would never make any changes in government and I don’t think that is a credible position so have nothing more to say about that.

    QUESTION (Libby Viner, ITN):

    Do you think it was unfortunate, though, that the world heard of it from Mr. Lamont’s mother?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is the reality, not the form in which they heard of it, that really matters, isn’t it?

    QUESTION (Philip Johnstone, Daily Telegraph):

    Beyond being a fresh face, what other qualities does Kenneth Clarke bring to the Treasury that the previous Chancellor lacked?

    Secondly, you say you wanted to refresh the government but by my reckoning you only brought four new Ministers into the government – two others have been Ministers before. Are you anticipating further changes in July at middle-ranking level as well?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I am not; no, of course I am not. I brought back some people who had talent who served in the government before, who lost their seats in Parliament and have now come back. They are still men who have a lot to offer the government and I was delighted to be able to bring them back. I think they will make a great contribution. I was able to bring in at the junior ranks of government and promote from one rank to another rank a number of people with very distinct potential for the future but refreshing the government is more than just bringing new people into the government. It is giving people in government who worked in a particular portfolio the opportunity to go and exercise their talents on another portfolio with the special advantage of the experience they have gained in their first Department. There is nothing fresh or novel about that. That is the way governments have been operating for as far back as we can trace and it is the right way in order to develop political policy and that is what I did in the reshuffle.

    QUESTION (Judith Dawson, Sky News):

    I didn’t want to disappoint you by not speaking about the polls and the polls aren’t looking frightfully good for either yourself as Prime Minister or for the government. Do you really believe that what you did yesterday will do the trick?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The two things are not related and if I may say, Judith, I seem to remember you saying the polls didn’t look very bright for me four days before the last general election.

    QUESTION (Judith Dawson, Sky News):

    Neither did they! [Laughter]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Remind me of the result! [Laughter]

    QUESTION (Jane Martenson, South Wales Echo):

    Prime Minister, what good will the appointment of John Redwood do for Wales and does his appointment mean a shift in policy for the region?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it doesn’t. In John Redwood, what I have done is given Wales an extremely talented politician who I believe will fight very hard for Wales. I think the important thing in any Secretary of State’s position is to find someone who has real ability in order to carry out that particular job. John has a wide range of experience across government already. I believe he will bring that experience whole-heartedly to the interests of the people of Wales and I think he will do an outstanding job.

    The first priority, frankly, in choosing people for any Cabinet is to choose people of very great ability. John Redwood in my judgement has very great ability and I think he will be of immense service to the people of Wales.

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Just a very simple question.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If only I had known! [Laughter]

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Do any of your Cabinet speak French?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes.

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Any of these new people? Does the new Chancellor speak French?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure about the new Chancellor speaking French. I do know that Mrs. Shephard, for example, is as bilingual – and maybe even trilingual – as anyone else in this room.

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    It is a curious thing that after so long in Europe that we have to have an interpreter for the Prime Minister.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Do you speak French?

    QUESTION (Paul Webster, The Guardian):

    Of course I do!

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Excellent! Congratulations! [Laughter]

  • PMQT Written Answers – 27 May 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th May 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Ministers (Cash Payments)

    Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Prime Minister if Departments in their capacity as employers notify the Inland Revenue when cash payments are made to Ministers to relieve financial pressures which affect their performance as Ministers.

    The Prime Minister : I know of no such payments.

     

    Parliamentary Questions

    Mr. Richard Shepherd : To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlie the policies of Her Majesty’s Government with respect to giving substantive answers to parliamentary questions seeking details of the names, occupations and remuneration of Members of (a) health boards in Scotland and (b) district health authorities in England.

    The Prime Minister : Non-executive health board members in Scotland are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and information on them is therefore held centrally and given in response to parliamentary questions. Non-executive members of district health authorities in England, however, are appointed by regional health authorities and not district health authorities in England are appointed by their respective board or authority. Information on them, therefore, is not currently available centrally.

    The level of remuneration for health authority members in England, and for health board members in Scotland, is set centrally and this information is always provided in response to parliamentary questions.

     

    Merlin Reactor

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department is responsible for overseeing the decommissioning of the Merlin reactor at Aldermaston.

    The Prime Minister : The nuclear installations inspectorate, which is now part of the Health and Safety Executive, was responsible for overseeing the decommissioning.

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 March, Official Report, column 33, what information has been received through the high commission in New Delhi from the Indian Government about Shabir Shah and Yasin Malik; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : On 26 May, our high commission in New Delhi received a lengthy aide memoire from the Indian Home Ministry. This stated that both Shabir Shah and Yasin Malik are in custody in Jammu where they are awaiting trial. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be writing to the hon. Gentleman with details.

     

    School Visits

    Mr. Tipping : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the local authority maintained schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges that he has visited since taking his present office.

    The Prime Minister : I have visited a number of local authority maintained schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges.

     

    Jubilee Line

    Mr. Bowis : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement about the Government’s commitment to making a contribution to the Jubilee line extension.

    The Prime Minister : The Government, and I personally, remain committed to the Jubilee line extension as a major addition to the infrastructure of docklands and of London’s transport. We have earmarked public funds for the line. As soon as negotiations with the companies involved in the financing of Canary Wharf have been concluded satisfactorily my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will authorise the start of construction and the first tranche of those funds will be made available. The line will then be built within an estimated 53 months. The draft funding agreement specifies that swingeing penalty payments will come into force if the line is not completed seven months after that.

  • Mr Major’s Memoirs on Norman Lamont – 27 May 1993

    Below is the text from John Major’s memoirs, John Major – The Autobiography, relating to the departure of Norman Lamont.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Norman’s [Lamont] credibility plummeted. The satirists piled in, and the speculation about he could survive was constant. Central Office and constituency MPs reported that party opinion wished to see a change. This all had an effect: in interviews ministers were questioned about Norman, while Norman himself was asked about trivia, and no one wanted to know about economic policy. In cabinet committees he began to need the reassurance of getting his own way, and proper debate was constrained. He had become a bird with a wing down.

    Ministerial colleagues, by raised eyebrow, rolling eyes and dismissive gestures, let it be known that his position was becoming untenable. Gradually he lost the confidence of industry, the City, the media and a large part, though not all, of the Cabinet and the parliamentary party. My sympathies were with him as a more sinned against than sinning, but I had no choice but to make a change. As the reshuffle approached I consulted senior colleagues; they all believed Norman had to go.

    I saw Norman at Number 10 early on the morning of 27th May [1993], and told him I intended to make a change of chancellor. I had thought long and hard about what other jobs he might like, and concluded it had to be a major department; a non-departmental job would not be enough. I therefore urged him to stay in the Cabinet, offering him the post of Secretary of State for the Environment, with the sweetener that he could keep the chancellor’s official country residence of Dorneywood. Pale-faced and tense, he refused. I pressed him. He refused again. I expressed my regrets. Still he refused. My offer was genuine. I wished him to stay in the Cabinet, but it seemed he could not bear to do so if he left the Treasury. It was a stilted series of exchanges that illustrated the chill that had descended upon our relationship and the depths of Norman’s hurt. “Yes, Prime Minister,”, “No thank you, Prime Minister”, “I wish to leave the Cabinet” were the only words he spoke. He turned and left. We have never spoken since.