The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • PMQT – 18 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 18th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Havercroft

    Q1. Mr. Enright : To ask the Prime Minister when he will pay an official visit to Havercroft.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Yorkshire among them.

    Mr. Enright : Is the Prime Minister aware that miners from Havercroft, who have been blackmailed into taking redundancy payments, do not count among the 3 million unemployed? Is he further aware that if the pit at Grimesthorpe were to be closed, male unemployment in the area would be one in three? Will he today, therefore, guarantee the future of Grimesthorpe, not least because it is commercially profitable?

    The Prime Minister : No one is blackmailed in the way the hon. Gentleman says. The position of Grimesthorpe, as with the other pits, will be covered in the review being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

     

    Engagements

    Q2. Mr. Barry Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 18 February.

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

    Mr. Jones : Does not Britain need a national strategy to combat the evil of mass unemployment? When will the indecision, drift and the weakness come to an end? Has not the right hon. Gentleman’s conduct of Her Majesty’s Government in recent times been a disgrace? If he cannot give a lead to our nation, should he not go?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman is well rehearsed, but not well informed. If he had been well informed, he would have known, for example, that in a recent speech in Athens the Leader of the Opposition admitted that unemployment was a problem not only in this country but right across Europe. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that, why cannot the hon. Gentleman?

     

    Q3. Mr. Oppenheim : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Oppenheim : Does my right hon. Friend agree that when it comes to the social chapter there can be no free ride, that such benefits have to be matched by increased productivity or they will add only to unemployment and that the best way to get sustainable long-term jobs is to continue with structural reforms, particularly improving education, rather than engaging in short- term bail-outs and subsidies for unsustainable industries? Would not policies like the social chapter, increased payroll tax, a statutory minimum wage and the repeal of trade union laws–all Labour policies–add to unemployment rather than improving the situation?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. There is no purpose in the Opposition saying that they care about unemployment when they are committed to policies that will put up unemployment and keep it up. Until they drop their support for the social chapter, the minimum wage and windfall tax, they are in no position to lecture anyone about job losses.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister appreciate that the country will never forget that it was his Government and his Chancellor of the Exchequer who told us that unemployment was a “price well worth paying”? On the day when unemployment has reached the tragic total of 3 million, will he now publicly repudiate that heartless approach?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that we have set in place–[Hon. Members : “Answer!”] We have set in place to assist people who are unemployed a comprehensive system of schemes unmatched in the history of this country and unmatched elsewhere in Europe–[Hon. Members : “Answer the question.”]–the training for work programme, the job clubs, the job– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. I will not have hon. Members shouting down any other right hon. or hon. Member. I warn Members that I shall use the authority that this House has given if this continues.

    The Prime Minister : I was trying to inform hon. Gentlemen, who were shouting out, of the assistance that has been put in place to help people who are currently without work to be trained and to get back in work, which I should have thought was what the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I would wish to see done. I repeat for his benefit : the training for work schemes, the job clubs, the job interview guarantees, the business start-up schemes, the job plan workshops, the restart courses–constitute an unprecedented amount of help to deal with a problem which exists in this country and in every country in Europe.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that unemployment at this menacing level is not just a personal disaster for millions of honest and decent people who want to have the independence and dignity that employment can give them, but also an economic millstone around this country’s neck? Does he not understand that unemployment at this tragic level costs Britain £27,000 million per year and that we lose 780 million working days? Is that not economic madness as well as social tragedy?

    The Prime Minister : Of course we appreciate that fact. That is why we are seeking, first, to help those who are unemployed, and also to create the circumstances to make sure that they have permanent, long-term, sustainable jobs in the future. We are determined to bring unemployment down, and we will–but with our policies, not with the lack of policies of Opposition Members. I repeat that we have put in place the most comprehensive training programmes ever to help unemployed people. We shall be introducing new training schemes with almost half a million new training and employment places in April. In terms of getting permanent, sustainable jobs, we have brought inflation down to its lowest level for 25 years, my right hon. Friend’s autumn statement put in place further policies for growth, interest rates are at their lowest level for 15 years and retail sales are rising. Those are the facts which bring positive hope for the unemployed, not the empty rhetoric of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

    Mr. John Smith : If those schemes were of any value, if they were successful, and if the Prime Minister really cares about bringing down unemployment, why has he stood idly by and allowed it to rise in every month of his period of office? Is it not rather contemptible, on this tragic day, to be seeking to blame others and to abuse his opponents? Is it not time that he accepted the responsibilities of his office and did what the country desperately wants him to do–put bringing down unemployment at the top of our national agenda?

    The Prime Minister : What the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say at the outset of his remarks was very revealing : if, he said, these schemes are of value. Does that explain why the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party have opposed every training measure that we have put in place for unemployed people? The facts are that the Government have put in place nearly 1 million training and employment opportunities this year, and we plan to increase them by half a million in April. I would find the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s concern more convincing if he had just one decent economic policy to tackle unemployment. Instead, he has two bad policies. The first is the tax on excess profits : the old Labour party speaking again–they do not like profits, they want to penalise success, and they will never understand that profits fund investment and finance jobs. And now they want a training tax as well to put more people out of work. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have a word with his transport spokesman, who said of the minimum wage– [Interruption.] I know Opposition Members do not like it, but they had better listen. His transport spokesman said : “I knew the consequences were that there would be some shakeout, any silly fool knew that.”

    Madam Speaker : Has the Prime Minister completed his answer?

    The Prime Minister : I sat down, Madam Speaker, because you were getting up. I will repeat the quote from the Opposition transport spokesman. [Interruption.] They do not like it, but they are going to get it. I repeat the quote from the shadow transport spokesman, who said of a national minimum wage :

    “I knew the consequences were that there would be some shakeout, any silly fool knew that.”

    It is a pity that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) did not know that and did not oppose a policy which would lose jobs.

    Mr. Robert Banks : Has my right hon. Friend seen reports showing that not only is Nissan in Sunderland exporting cars to Japan, but Vauxhall is now exporting Astra cars to Japan? Is that not a remarkable turnround in the fortunes of British car manufacturers, good for jobs and good for exports?

    The Prime Minister : It most certainly is. We all recall the state of the car industry in the 1970s. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that this is welcome news for British car manufacturers, proving that they can compete with the world’s best on quality, price and productivity both in this country and in exporting.

    Mr. Ashdown rose–

    Mr. Skinner : You bailed him out.

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must resume his seat. Time is passing.

    Mr. Ashdown : Why does the Prime Minister always use his time to tell us what the Opposition said instead of telling us what he will do? Last night President Clinton gave his country hope through strong leadership and a clear programme for renewal. Is it not fortunate that the Prime Minister does not have to make a state of the nation address because it is clear that if he did he would have noting to say, not even, it appears, “Sorry”?

    The Prime Minister : If the right hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard a long list of action that the Government have taken. Since he did not listen, let me give him more information. The £2.5 billion spent on training measures is two and a half times as much as any previous Government spent. We had the package of measures in the autumn statement to boost the construction industry by releasing capital receipts, the assistance for manufacturing industry by introducing new capital allowances, and the extra help for exporters. The right hon. Gentleman is leader of his party. Where has he been that he knows none of this?

    Mr. Lidington : Is my right hon. Friend aware that businesses in the Thames-Chiltern area are reporting increased exports to the middle east, the far east and north America? Does he agree that in a world economy which is becoming more and not less competitive, permanent jobs and prosperity will depend on the enterprise and hard work of businesses like those and not on the meddlesome bureaucracy and cheap answers proposed by Opposition parties?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is quite right. In a fiercely competitive world, it is only if we have the most competitive industries that we can look forward to job creation or to increasing prosperity. That is why it is necessary to get inflation down. That is why it has been necessary to get interest rates down and why the improvements in productivity which are becoming so remarkable are one of the best indications of our future prospects. They are good prospects as a result of the measures that we have taken and will continue to sustain.

     

    Q4. Mr. Trimble : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 February.

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

    Mr. Trimble : I have here a letter from the Fair Employment Commission refusing assistance to one of my constituents with regard to his complaint that he had been discriminated against by the civil service. Incidentally, the letter is signed by the public servant who suggested recently that photographs of Her Majesty should not be displayed in a public building. The clear implication of this letter is that criteria, instead of being set objectively by reference to the nature of the job, should be manipulated in order to achieve the quota–

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question. We now have the background.

    Mr. Trimble : The Fair Employment Commission described this manipulation as affording equality of opportunity. Does the Prime Minister agree that such criteria should be manipulated for the purpose of achieving the commission’s job quota in every place of work?

    The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman had let me see the letter, I should have been able to give him a detailed reply. If he does so, I will examine the letter and respond to him in detail. As I have not seen it, the hon. Gentleman cannot have expected a reply of any sort.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 17 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 17th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Sandringham

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement on 11 February, Official Report, column 1111, if Sandringham will be treated as a royal palace or as a private residence of Her Majesty the Queen.

    The Prime Minister : Sandringham, which has official as well as private use, is a private asset of Her Majesty the Queen.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Manchester Olympics Bid – 17 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Manchester Olympics bid, held during an interview in London on Wednesday 17th February 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why he was supporting the Manchester Olympics bid].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    For several reasons really. Firstly, I would very much like to see the Olympic Games here at the millennium. I think it would be a marvellous start for the next century and I think it offers tremendous opportunities were we able to achieve the Games. But secondly, Manchester has worked extremely hard. They have tried before to get the Olympic Games there. On this occasion, they had the full support of the Government and I believe they deserve it.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Government would be helping to fund the bid].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In order for the bid to go forward we have to guarantee that the facilities will be provided. Nobody wants to get to the year 2000 and find the Olympic Games facilities aren’t there. I don’t think there is any doubt that there will be a very substantial private sector commitment – that is already becoming apparent – but there is a large Government financial commitment as well.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about who would fund any shortfall].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think one needs to put this in context. We are talking of expenditure that builds up to the millennium over the next eight years or so. It isn’t an expenditure just for one single event. At the conclusion of the Olympic Games, not only will there be the tremendous gain of having the Olympic Games here, we will also have seen the renovation of the whole of East Manchester. Much of that expenditure would have needed to be undertaken in any event and in addition to that of course, we will have the enduring legacy of some first-class sporting facilities in the north-west available to people in the north-west and indeed across the country as a whole.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in London – 17 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in London, given on Wednesday 17th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I first welcome you all here this afternoon for this press conference. Last February, I announced that the Government was going to back Manchester’s bid to host the Olympic Games in the year 2000. Today, I can present to you the bid document. This is the bid document that was handed over to the International Olympic Committee on 1 February. It is a detailed presentation of why Manchester in our view should be the Olympic City for the year 2000. It is a very comprehensive document; it ranges over every aspect of the Games from sports venues to security and it demonstrates that Manchester has plans to provide world-class facilities.

    The Manchester bid is a good deal more than just a superb technical achievement. It is a vision that people have in Manchester both for the city’s future and for the future of the whole region and the Government share that vision. The Manchester bid is the British bid for the Olympic Games in the year 2000. It is a national undertaking and it has the very strong support of the Government. I believe there could be no better start to the next millennium than to have the 2000 Olympics here in Britain at Manchester.

    Last February, I pledged £55 million of Government funding to back the bid up to the time when the International Olympic Committee takes its decision. We have kept that promise and rather more; we have gone further by providing up to £20 million more from within existing spending programmes, making a total of £75 million.

    The Olympic arena is now under construction. Work is starting soon on the national cycling centre and the acquisition and clearance for the Olympic stadium site is now well under way.

    I said last year that this bid would spearhead the regeneration of East Manchester and let me say to you today that we have honoured that commitment as well; the Government will be providing some £40 million funding for East Manchester in 1993/4 on top of the direct Olympic investment.

    We have also undertaken in this bid document that if Manchester is chosen the Government will ensure that all the necessary facilities will be built partly by private finance and partly by substantial public funding. I am confident there will be no shortage of private finance available as we have already seen in the case of the Olympic arena but the Government is committed to ensure that the funding necessary to stage and organise the Games will be available and we also intend to legislate at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the Organising Committee for the Games has the necessary powers to plan and implement this event.

    Most people in our country love sport but I believe that the Olympics will bring a good deal more than sport to the country. Manchester and indeed beyond Manchester – the whole of the north west – will benefit from the legacy of world-class facilities and from a huge economic boost to the area. Between now and September, we will be showing the world what Manchester can offer. We will be showing the world what Britain as a whole can offer. I myself will be visiting Lausanne in April to see the President of the International Olympic Committee, the Marquis de Samaranche, and I will take that opportunity to promote Manchester’s bid.

    I believe in this document we have a winning plan and we will seek to demonstrate to the IOC that there could be no better site for the millennium Games than here in Britain at Manchester. I believe that with the enthusiasm and support of the people of Manchester – and I have no doubt we have that enthusiasm and support – that we are going for gold in this particular bid and I believe later this year we will get it so I am delighted to you for being here this afternoon.

    I will ask Bob Scott, the Chairman of the Bid Committee, to say a few words and then there will be one or two other comments to be made and we will then take your questions.

    1. BOB SCOTT:

    I would just like to say that when we came back from Tokyo in 1990, we knew we had to do two things; we had been beaten by Atlanta but we had not been disgraced and what we had to do was to ask for the Government’s support. We had to get the Government behind us and secondly, we had to get new facilities coming out of the ground before the IOC members voted.

    Thanks to the Prime Minister and the Government, both these things are now absolutely plainly achieved and triumphantly going forward. It feels like today it is the bell of an 800-metre race. We have got to the bell in a very good position and it is smashing that Seb Coe is here with us today; we are second or third; we are on the shoulder; we are beginning to leave four and the others behind and we are making very good progress. We hope that from now right through to September the bid will always delight people, will always interest people; we will be a bid on the move; we will be a bid that creates good stories for Manchester and for Britain but above all, if we win it will be because we got everybody behind us, we created this partnership and we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister for his personal support as well, of course, the Government’s support.

    1. GRAHAM STRINGER:

    As the Prime Minister said, the bid was always more than just creating Olympic facilities and bidding for the Olympic Games; it was to spearhead urban regeneration in Manchester. The £75 million that the Government have put into the scheme is leading to £200 million-worth of investment but in some ways those figures don’t tell the complete story.

    I talked to the contractor who is building the indoor arena at Victoria Station last week and they have signed up to our employment and construction charter which is a charter designed to make sure that benefits from the construction of those facilities go to local people and already on the Victoria Station site people from Moss-side and the rest of the inner city area in Manchester are being employed and that is just a small part of what we believe will be a highly successful urban regeneration based on a successful Olympic bid which will bring more than 10,000 full-time equivalent jobs to Manchester.

    CRAIG READIE:

    Prime Minister, the British Olympic Association is delighted to be with you here today in No. 10. Our governing bodies look forward to helping this bid; we look forward to helping this bid; our sportsmen look forward to using the facilities that will be built; and we look forward to the challenge of presenting a British Olympic team in Manchester in 2000 that will allow our competitors to be a credit to themselves and a credit to the country. To use your phrase, we believe that sport enhances all our lives and we would be very happy to enhance that development.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Craig, thank you very much. I also have with me here Peter Brooke, the Secretary of State for National Heritage and Michael Howard the Secretary of State for the Environment. Both of them have taken a very direct interest in this bid and will have a separate and continuing interest right the way through to the conclusion of the bid.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, a question about the extent of your personal interest. Will you take the bid to Monte Carlo and support it there do you think?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is yet to be decided. I don’t know whether it will be practical but I certainly wouldn’t rule that out. I had the opportunity of seeing many members of the Olympic Committee when I went to Barcelona last year to see the Games. I took the opportunity of having a reception there and meeting many members of the International Olympic Committee. I will be going to see the President. I have seen the President here. I will be meeting others so I don’t think there need be any doubt about my commitment to seeing Manchester win.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, I understand that this is only the second time that a news conference has been staged inside here. Is this the case and if so, how would you like that to be interpreted?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not that we are coming second, that is for sure! I am not sure whether that is correct or not. I have certainly held a news conference in here before. I am not quite sure what my predecessors may have done – you may be correct – but it should only be interpreted in the light of the importance that we give to this particular bid both for Manchester and for the country as a whole. I genuinely can think of no better way to start the new millennium than to have the Olympic Games here in our country. Manchester have tried before; they weren’t successful. They have had the enormous courage to try again; a tremendous amount of work has been put into it by many people in Manchester, some of them here today – Bob Scott, Graham Stringer and others. I believe that effort deserves the support of the Government and they have the full support of the Government.

    QUESTION:

    A question, if I may, about Manchester’s rivals, particularly Beijing. Would you think it would be appropriate to hold the Olympics in Beijing after Tienanmen Square?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am here to promote the bid from Manchester, not to damn the bid from anywhere else and I think it will be on the basis of showing the Olympic Committee that Manchester is the best place for the Games that we will endeavour to win.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, which city would you prefer to watch the Olympics in, Manchester or Sydney?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I might ask you the same question with that accent! [Laughter].

    SAME MAN:

    I’ll go for Sydney! How about you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I’ll go for Manchester.

    SAME MAN:

    What are the features of Manchester that are particularly attractive?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are many features in Manchester that are very attractive. It is a very ancient, very vital city. It has a very modern communications centre. It is going to have some of the most modern Olympic facilities that we will have ever seen at any stage. Contrary to legend, Manchester is actually rather dry in the appropriate months, drier I may say than Atlanta where the next Olympic Games will be held and a good deal drier than Paris, to take another capital purely at random so the circumstances and the climate for good athletics, for world record-breaking athletics, will almost certainly be there in Manchester in 2000.

    SAME MAN:

    Many people of course go both to watch the Games and to see somewhere new. Apart from what is happening at the Olympics, what does Manchester have to offer them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think both Manchester and Great Britain have a great deal to offer. We have one of the highest numbers of tourists who come to the United Kingdom each year than any country in the world so I think there is no doubt with the communications and the size of the United Kingdom one comes to Manchester and one can see the United Kingdom. I don’t have to point to the future; I can look in the mirror and see the number of people who found it attractive to come here.

    From the point of view of staging the Games and beaming the Games around the world of course the time zones are particularly important to beam the Olympic Games by television across the world from Manchester at appropriate times,

    QUESTION (Australian Broadcasting Corporation):

    If Manchester doesn’t get it, would you prefer to see them in Beijing or Sydney? [Laughter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t admit your premise and we look forward to welcoming both you Australians here in the year 2000.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, about the finances, you have almost given an open-ended commitment there including up to £2 billion in capital investment. What is the limit that the Government will put in, the maximum amount?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We estimate the total cost to be about £1.5 billion at the moment, not £2 billion. It was something like £4 billion of course in Barcelona but they didn’t have the facilities in place that are already there in terms of Manchester. There are a large number of facilities, not least the communications network in Manchester, that are in place that on previous occasions have had to be put in place by the bidding towns and cities so our present estimate is around £1.5 billion. A good deal of that will be raised in terms of private finance and of course the funding will be needed over the period between now and the year 2000 so it is a substantial sum in cash, that is certainly true; how much of it will fall on the taxpayer is as yet unclear but it is spread over many years and much of it, of course, isn’t money that is going to be spent for a single event and then gone because an integral part of this bid is the regeneration of the whole of East Manchester and that is something that I would have wished to do in any event and so not only will we have the regeneration of East Manchester, not only will we have the memory of having had the Olympics in East Manchester, but we will also have the continuing use of some very remarkable sporting facilities that will be available for many years after the Olympics in an area of the country that has long had a reputation as being sport-loving. I think it is a good bargain for all of us.

    QUESTION:

    What about using some of the money from the national lottery?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is possible that the Millennium Fund will make a contribution, that is as yet undetermined but it is certainly possible.

    QUESTION:

    Picking up the point made by my colleague in front, there will be some people who think that taxpayers’ money maybe in the current climate would be better spent on things like hospitals and schools. How can you argue to them that this does represent good use of their money?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We balance our public expenditure this year at around £260 billion in a single year. We are talking of a sum total of expenditure of £1.5 billion over eight years, only a portion of which will be met by the taxpayer, much of which would have been spent in any event through the urban programme and in other ways and that will leave an enduring legacy.

    What it will do, of course, is lever-in a lot of private finance that wouldn’t otherwise have been available that will be there as a permanent bonus both for the people of Manchester North-West and in terms of the sporting facilities for people right across the country.

    If I can add a point to that, that is the financial case perhaps for doing it but I will confess to you another instinct that I have. We are one of the greatest sporting nations in the world. It seems to me that if we are to throw our hands to one side, a nation of our size with our reputation, with our love of sport, to say that we are not going to seek to bid for the Olympic Games or any major sporting event like that, that would be a very remarkable position for us to take. I have no reservations whatsoever about supporting this bid.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As for the last point, I wish I knew. I think Manchester is very well placed now. Many people would have said twelve or eighteen months ago perhaps that Manchester was a rank outsider. As a result of the work that has been done by the Bid Committee and secondly as a result of the clear support given to Manchester by the Government it is self-evident that this is a national bid and we will be able to meet the commitments the Olympic Committee expect us to meet and I believe Manchester is now amongst the most favoured cities for winning this remarkable event in the year 2000. We can’t guarantee victory but I do believe Manchester deserves it and we will do all we can ensure they achieve it.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would certainly say so.

    QUESTION:

    In the unlikely event of us failing to win the nomination for 2000, would you think that it would be a good idea to go ahead and build the Olympic stadium on the grounds that that may well swing the vote for next time?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I may repeat what I said to the gentleman from Australia, I don’t admit the premise but if that were to come about we would clearly consider what had to be done, but I am not entering into that now.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you said that you will be [indistinct] in April. I wonder whether you can give us some other indication as to when and where you will be meeting IOC members? I am sure that Manchester have told you it is absolutely essential that you as the leader of the bid shake the hand and persuade them. For instance, will you be at the FA Cup Final because I understand that a large number of IOC members are expected there and if so, would you seek them out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Is that an invitation? I think the opportunity to meet the IOC members will come in many ways and I will certainly meet them but I don’t think for a raft of reasons I can give you details of when and how now. Many of them, of course, I have met already.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, to hark back to the financial aspects of the bid, if Manchester were to win the Games and the cost of providing facilities and operating the Games were not to be provided from particularly the private purse, would the Government be prepared to underwrite the cost, the deficit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have indicated in the bid that we will ensure the facilities are provided. I don’t think there is any doubt whatsoever about a very large contribution coming from the private sector but in order to ensure that the bid can go forward it is necessary to underwrite the facilities.

    QUESTION (TIMES OF INDIA):

    Another sports-related question if I may ask. Do you have any comments on the performance of the Indian cricketers [laughter] and on the rather unsporting types of controversy which are going on in the two countries relating to the match?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know how India will do in the 2000 Olympics but she has certainly played very well in the test matches so far and congratulate India on her wins.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, going back to the previous question, you are not only ensuring that the facilities will be built but according to the bid document you are also going to ensure that the money to stage and organise the Games will be provided so you are underwriting the further money in addition to building the facilities. That is correct, is it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is correct.

    QUESTION:

    Could you please tell me why we haven’t had a discussion on who has won the competition for the stadium? I believe that was due on 29 January.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me ask Bob Scott to respond to that.

    1. BOB SCOTT:

    I think you are being very greedy actually. I think you are having quite a lot today without having that as well. We like to spread our good news. You will be hearing very shortly.

    QUESTION:

    You talked about the disadvantage of Asia in terms of time zones and broadcasting but isn’t it true that in a way that it is Asia’s or even Australia’s turn considering that it has been in Barcelona and now in Atlanta?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I seem to recall it was at Seoul not all that long ago. I also recall that the United Kingdom has never actually gone through a bid procedure and won the Olympic Games. Twice the United Kingdom have held the Olympic Games – I think in 1908 and 1948 – and on each occasion we picked up the Olympic Games when other people had let them fall at the last moment and saved Olympic Games that otherwise would not have taken place. I think it is time for us to have the Olympic Games in our own right and I hope that time is the year 2000.

    QUESTION:

    The IOC is well known for its liking for glamour and spoiling itself. Do you honestly believe that for instance a boating afternoon on the Ship Canal can really compete with a bathing afternoon on Bondi Beach? [Laughter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Wait and see! Come to Manchester and you will see for yourself.

    Does anyone want to add anything? Is there anything really pressing that we haven’t covered?

    QUESTION:

    What I am wondering, Mr. Prime Minister, is how you feel about the Olympics other than as a sporting event, what they add or what they give the world and is it important in that context for Britain to participate at this level and try to get these Games?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the Olympic Games do give added value to the world. Very few people can watch the Olympic Games with athletes from all parts of a country trained to the peak of their physical fitness, performing to the best of their abilities without thinking they are seeing some of the better sides of human nature so I think the Olympic Games, quite apart from the delight of taking part and the delight of winning, is something that is of intrinsic value to everybody who watches it. I think it is of intrinsic value actually to have the Olympic Games. We would be privileged to present them in this country and I hope we will.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Launch Manchester Olympics Bid – 17 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to launch the Manchester Olympics Bid, held at 10 Downing Street on Wednesday 17th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Last February I announced that the Government was backing Manchester’s bid to host the Olympic Games in the year 2000. Today, I can present to you the Bid Document which was handed over to the International Olympic Committee of 1st February. It is a detailed presentation of why Manchester should be the Olympic City for the year 2000.

    The Bid Document ranges over every aspect of the Games, from sports venues to security; it demonstrates that Manchester will provide world class facilities.

    But the Manchester bid is more than just a superb technical achievement. It is a vision that the citizens of Manchester have for the City’s future and for their region.

    I share that vision. The Manchester bid is the British bid. It is a national undertaking, strongly supported by the British Government. There could be no better start to the next millennium than hosting the 2000 Olympics in Britain.

    Last February, I pledged 55 million pounds of Government funding to back the Bid up to the time when the International Olympic Committee takes its decision. We have kept that promise, and gone further by providing up to 20 million pounds more from within existing spending programmes – making a total of 75 million pounds.

    – The Olympic Arena is now under construction
    – Work is starting soon on the National Cycling Centre
    – And the acquisition and clearance of the Olympic Stadium site is well under way.

    I said last year that the bid would spearhead the regeneration of East Manchester. We have honoured that commitment too. The Government will be providing some 40 million pounds funding for East Manchester in 1993-94, on top of the direct Olympic investment.

    We have also undertaken in the bid documents that if Manchester is chosen, the Government will ensure that all the necessary facilities will be built, partly by private finance and partly by substantial public funding. I am confident that there will be no shortage of private finance available – as we have already seen in the case of the Olympic Arena. But the Government is committed to ensure that the funding necessary to stage and organise the Games will be available. We also intend to legislate at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the Organising Committee for the Games has the necessary powers to plan and implement this event.

    Most people love sport. But the Olympics will bring more than sport to the country. Manchester and the North West will benefit from a legacy of world class facilities and from a huge economic boost to the area.

    Between now and September we will be showing the world what Manchester can offer. What Britain can offer. I myself will be visiting Lausanne in April to see the President of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Samaranch, and I will take that opportunity to promote Manchester’s bid. I believe we have a winning plan. We will seek to demonstrate to the IOC that there could be no better site for the Millennium Games than Manchester. With the enthusiasm and support of the people of Manchester we are going for gold and I believe we will get it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 16 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Royal Family (Taxation)

    Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 11 February, Official Report, column 1111, at which tax office the tax affairs of Her Majesty the Queen and the Prince of Wales will be administered; if any additional (a) training and (b) security measures are proposed; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, who is a signatory of the memorandum of understanding, is responsible for the administrative arrangements relating to the tax affairs of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I have no doubt that he will ensure appropriate levels of training and security.

    As with other taxpayers, confidentiality and security are important considerations. That is why details relating to where the tax affairs of the Queen and Prince of Wales will be administered will not be released.

     

    Official Visits

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans an official visit to Southwark or Bermondsey.

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

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

    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.

     

    Ministers (Resignation)

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister what are the circumstances in which he would require Ministers to resign.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 9 February 1993] : I would not expect to have to do so. All ministerial offices are at the disposal of the Prime Minister.

  • PMQT – 16 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Worthington : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

    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. Worthington : In 1979, just over 1 million people were unemployed. At the same time, just over 7 million people were employed in manufacturing industry–seven people in manufacturing jobs for every single person unemployed. Now, measuring unemployment in the same way, there are 4.25 million unemployed. On Thursday this week– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for some time. He knows that he must put a direct question.

    Mr. Worthington : In the past 14 years, 3 million manufacturing jobs have been destroyed. Did the Prime Minister intend to do that, or was it someone else’s fault?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that “the threat of recession and the reality of rising unemployment is spreading throughout the European continent” –not my words but those of the Leader of the Opposition. I would find the hon. Gentleman’s concern more convincing if he had one decent economic policy to tackle unemployment, but he has not.

    Mr. Wells : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Nissan factory in Sunderland has been declared by its Japanese owners to be the most efficient factory in the world? Is he further aware that should this House be foolish enough to include the socialist charter in the Maastricht treaty, Japanese inward investment would be seriously discouraged?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware of the specific point made by my hon. Friend, but I was aware that Nissan is exporting cars from Sunderland back to Japan. I offer my congratulations to the management and work force on that achievement. There is no doubt that the social chapter and similar policies would damage the prospect of such success stories in future. That is why we opposed it at Maastricht and why we oppose it now.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister accept that the House should be able to decide whether Britain should accept or reject the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : It is for this House to decide by its vote on Third Reading whether to approve the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and enable the Government to ratify the treaty. There is no question of our ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary procedures. Individual amendments to the Bill will be debated in Committee in the usual way as for others.

    Mr. John Smith : Bearing in mind that the Government announced their latest interpretation of the law only yesterday, and as other amendments apart from amendment No. 27 have been ruled out of order, is not it a curious coincidence that the prospect of political defeat causes a revision of the legal opinion? Why are the Government so anxious to prevent the House from deciding this issue?

    The Prime Minister : There are two sorts of amendments that we have to deal with in the Bill. There are those that would render our law incompatible with the treaty and which must be defeated, and others that are undesirable but which would not prevent us from ratifying the treaty. The Committee will come to those, issue by issue.

    Mr. John Smith : Has the Prime Minister no sense of shame? Today, he was described in The Times as being like a

    “spiv business man employing a sharp lawyer”.

    — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Smith : Why is the Prime Minister so determined to use every slippery manoeuvre to avoid Parliament deciding this issue? Is he not engaged in an outright abuse of our unwritten constitution?

    Mr. Skinner : Vote against Third Reading and we’ll show them. [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister : Occasionally, it might be a novelty to see the hon. Gentleman in the same Lobby as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Sharp lawyers in glass houses should not throw stones in the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has. The Government are explaining to the House what the true effect of an incompetent Opposition amendment would be.

    The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East claims repeatedly to support the Maastricht treaty, but he and his hon. Friends tabled an amendment which was intended to lead to amendments to the treaty, a new intergovernmental conference and new ratification procedures in the member states. Opposition Members were prepared to put at risk the future not just of the Bill but of the entire treaty. That is the right hon. and learned Gentleman who accuses us of sharp practice when he claims to support the Bill.

    Mr. Booth : Would the Prime Minister express the feelings of the whole House by praising the fine British achievement in the Antarctic by Sir Ranulph Fiennes and Dr. Stroud? Does he consider that that is an example of volunteering for a good cause which he was advocating earlier this year?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to offer my congratulations and those of the House to Sir Ranulph. It shows that if one keeps going one will get to one’s objective.

     

    Q2. Rev. Martin Smyth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Smyth : Could the Prime Minister, in his meeting with President Clinton, assure him of our good wishes but at the same time urge him to resist moves to appoint a peace envoy for Northern Ireland since those who advocate it are partisan in their opinion?

    Does the Prime Minister accept that the best way to promote peace in Northern Ireland is the continued curtailment of funds and support for terrorism with an intensive education course for United States citizens, especially those of Irish republican sympathies, to enable them to understand that Northern Ireland is not a colony but part of the United Kingdom by choice of its citizens?

    The Prime Minister : There has been a considerable effort by the United States Government and a number of leading American politicians to curb the flow of funds from the United States and to co-operate with us in bringing terrorist criminals to justice. I welcome that very much.

    I hope and expect the new American Administration to continue to support the political dialogue established over the past two years. I believe that it offers the best hope of reconciliation and is fully consistent with Northern Ireland’s position, as the hon. Member said, as a part of the United Kingdom.

     

    Q3. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Paice : My right hon. Friend will recall that the last time that inflation was 1.7 per cent. he was just 25 years old and I was even younger. He will also recall that the then Labour Chancellor stated that inflation was the mother and father of unemployment. Is it not the case that with low inflation, low interest rates, low taxation and high productivity, Britain is best placed to recover from the recession ahead of all the other countries in Europe?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend except in one respect ; I believe that I was 24 at the time and not 25. But the fall in inflation in January was excellent news in terms of both the retail prices index and the underlying rate of inflation. It provides the best possible basis for recovery in output and employment. We now have the lowest inflation rate for a quarter of a century and a rate below that of our colleagues in the Community and below the G7 averages. We have the lowest interest rates in the Community. We have mortgage rates at their lowest since 1956 and external surveys show that the United Kingdom will be among the fastest growing economies in Europe both this year and next year.

     

    United Nations

    Q4. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to visit the United Nations headquarters in New York in the near future.

    Mr. Cryer : Does the Prime Minister accept that the Government’s support of the United Nations is highly selective and that there is absolutely no case for the Government continuing to breach the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty by the manufacture and deployment of Trident nuclear weapons of mass destruction?

    Mr. Gallie : What about Rosyth?

    Mr. Cryer : Does the Prime Minister endorse and support–

    Mr. Gallie : What about Rosyth?

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman had better contain himself.

    Mr. Cryer : Does the Prime Minister endorse and support the 150 members of the United Nations who have by treaty and declaration refused to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons? If he supports those 150 nations and their moral superiority, why does he not follow them? Does he support them, yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) drew attention to some of the inconsistencies in the hon. Gentleman’s question. The replacement of Polaris in the mid-1990s is essential for Britain to maintain an effective and credible deterrent into the next century. There is nothing in the non-proliferation treaty to prevent a nuclear weapons state from maintaining the credibility and effectiveness of a minimum deterrent in this way. That is the position in law and it is our position in policy.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

    Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of that unsatisfactory and misleading answer, I reserve the right to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman may raise the matter again, but he had better withdraw the word “misleading”.

    Mr. Cryer rose–

    Madam Speaker : Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I heard the word. I am sure that he will rephrase it for me.

    Mr. Cryer : I will withdraw the word “misleading” and say that he was economical with the truth.

    Madam Speaker : Mr. Patrick Thompson.

    Mr. Thompson : Is my right hon. Friend aware of representations from the police and local crime prevention panels, including the panel in Norwich, about the increased number of serious crimes committed by young people, some out on bail? Some individuals commit literally hundreds of offences. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government are determined to tackle that horrendous problem?

    The Prime Minister : I will offer that assurance to my hon. Friend. There is a small hard core of persistent young offenders who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime, most notably property crime, especially car theft. In the past society has sometimes perhaps been too quick to understand and too slow to condemn. I doubt whether that helps the young people concerned. It is time to crack down on those young offenders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will shortly make proposals to do just that.

     

    Q6. Dr. Reid : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

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

    Dr. Reid : With reference to the Prime Minister’s earlier answer on the question of Maastricht, may I inform him that this morning I had the pleasure of showing round the House of Commons a group of pupils from Brannock high school in my constituency? Having spoken of 1,000 years of Parliament and several hundred years of parliamentary sovereignty, I was asked a simple question by one of the pupils : “But what good is Parliament if the Prime Minister can ignore it when he chooses?” How would the Prime Minister have responded to that question?

    The Prime Minister : He would have said, “I can’t, and I don’t.”

    Mr. Hawkins : Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of literally thousands of my constituents who work at British Aerospace on the Tornado line for the work that he did in personally securing the contract? Will he further accept that my constituents know that they have him and the Conservative party to thank for securing their future in the defence industry and the future of their families? Unlike the Labour party, which whinges and whines, my right hon. Friend goes out and gets jobs for Britain.

    The Prime Minister : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that endorsement. The Tornado is undoubtedly a fine aircraft and I hope that we shall be able to export many more.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Smoking

    Mr. Peter Bottomley : To ask the Prime Minister what provisions govern the imposition of no-smoking policies by operators of (a) trains, (b) aeroplanes, (c) buses and (d) taxis.

    The Prime Minister : The Government believe that decisions on whether or not smoking should be permitted on public transport are a matter for the operators concerned.

    On the railways, British Rail has the power to ban smoking by virtue of British Rail byelaw 20. On the London Underground, smoking is banned under a London Transport byelaw made under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962, as amended by paragraph 5(1) of schedule 3 to the Transport (London) Act 1969 and section 37 of the Transport Act 1981.

    Under article 53 of the Air Navigation Order 1989, the commander of an aircraft is empowered to decide on whether passengers should or should not be allowed to smoke.

    Bus operators are entitled to ban smoking on their vehicles under section 6 of the Passenger Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors and Passengers) Regulations 1990.

    There are no statutory provisions for taxi drivers to ban smoking in their vehicles. In line with their commitment in the “Health of the Nation” White Paper, the Government have undertaken to seek an opportunity to amend the relevant legislation to allow them to do so.

     

    Mercenaries

    Mr. Conway : To ask the Prime Minister what action the Government take to ensure that individuals known to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to have been mercenary soldiers to whom consular advice or assistance has been given are notified to the Ministry of Defence.

    The Prime Minister : The Ministry of Defence would not expect the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to notify them routinely of individuals who had sought consular advice or assistance, unless there were reason to believe that the individual concerned might be a serving or former member of the armed forces.

     

    Nuclear Materials

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to raise the matters of nuclear weapons testing, nuclear reprocessing and the international trade in nuclear explosive materials during his meeting with President Clinton on 24 February.

    The Prime Minister : I expect to have wide ranging discussions with President Clinton and members of his Administration.

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister how members of the public can contribute to the Scott inquiry.

    The Prime Minister : Members of the public who have information to contribute to the inquiry may write direct to Lord Justice Scott at 1 Palace Street, London, SW1E 5HE.

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister what resources Her Majesty’s Government have made available to the Scott inquiry to pay for travel costs, overnight accommodation and subsistence of witnesses invited from (a) the United Kingdom and (b) abroad.

    The Prime Minister : Lord Justice Scott will be provided with the resources that he considers necessary to conduct his inquiry.

     

    World Summit for Children

    Mr. Battle : To ask the Prime Minister what specific targets his Government are setting for itself in terms of allocating resources for clean water, sanitation and basic education, in light of agreements made at the world summit for children.

    The Prime Minister : In the financial year 1991-92, one quarter of our bilateral aid to developing countries allocatable by sector was spent on clean water, sanitation and education.

     

    Rural Areas

    Mr. Ancram : To ask the Prime Minister what responsibilities the Department of Trade and Industry has for trade and industry in rural areas.

    The Prime Minister : The Department of Trade and Industry and its regional offices liaise closely in the delivery of services with other Government Departments and agencies where necessary. This includes the Department of the Environment which has responsibility for rural development policy and the Rural Development Commission.

     

    Coastal and Marine Issues

    Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister if he will unify departmental responsibility for coastal and marine matters including incidents of oil pollution.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 12 February 1993] : No. The present division of responsibilities within Government for coastal and marine matters provides a comprehensive system of management. Coastal issues cannot be artificially isolated from the mainstream of policy-making across Government. Responsibility for preventing and responding to marine pollution lies clearly with the Department of Transport, which liaises with other Departments as appropriate.

     

    EC Regulations

    Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with his EC partners concerning transfer of undertakings and protection of employment regulations.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 12 February 1993] : The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 implement the EC acquired rights directive 1977. The European Commission is expected to make proposals to revise the directive shortly.

     

    Departmental Library

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 9 February, Official Report, column 551, what use has been made of the book by his Office; and what account the Government have taken of the substance of the final chapter of the book in considering possible prosecutions arising out of the case.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 12 February 1993] : The matters discussed in the book are the subject of Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry. It is necessary to await the judge’s report and recommendations.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 12 February 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 12th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Pay Review Bodies

    Mr. Ward : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest reports of the pay review bodies.

    The Prime Minister : The 1993 reports of the review bodies on the pay of nursing staff, midwives and health visitors, the professions allied to medicine, the armed forces, and school teachers have now been published. Copies are available in the Vote Office. The Government are grateful to the members of the review bodies for the time and care which they have put into the preparation of the reports.

    In November the Government announced that public sector pay settlements in the coming year would be restricted to a range of 0 to 1.5 per cent. In line with the approach to public sector pay restraint, the groups covered by the Doctors and Dentists Review Body, the Nurses Pay Review Body and the Armed Forces Pay Review Body would receive an increase in pay of 1.5 per cent. from 1 April 1993. These review bodies were, however, invited by the Government to continue work on other specific issues and consider their position on performance pay, as appropriate to their remit groups.

    In accordance with this earlier statement, the Government will pay increases of 1.5 per cent. to doctors and dentists, nursing staff, midwives and health visitors, professions allied to medicine and the armed forces with effect from 1 April 1993.

    The School Teachers Review Body had previously been directed to report on school teachers’ pay and conditions in 1993-94. The Secretary of State for Education directed it to have regard to the Government’s general approach to public sector pay restraint. The School Teachers Review Body has recommended an across the board increase of 1 per cent. from 1 April 1993 together with restructuring of classroom teachers’ pay effective from 1 September 1993. The recommendations would cost a total of 1.5 per cent. in the financial year 1993-94 and an additional 0.35 per cent. in the following year. The Government therefore propose to reduce the across-the-board increase for qualified classroom teachers at 1 April to 0.55 per cent., but to make a one-off payment of £90 to those teachers on 1 May 1993. This, together with the implementation of restructuring designed to develop the relationship between pay and performance in schools, will give teachers, like most other review body groups, an increase in pay of 1.5 per cent. whilst containing the total cost within the settlement limit. Head and deputy head teachers will, as recommended by the review body, receive an increase of 1 per cent. on 1 April.

    The Top Salaries Review Body did not report this year. In common with Ministers and Members of Parliament, Top Salaries Review Body groups will receive no pay increase in respect of 1993. The Government will honour their commitment to pay the deferred second stage of the 1992 award, under which these groups will receive an increase of 2.9 per cent. from 1 April 1993.

    The Doctors and Dentists Review Body also decided not to report this year, but recommended an increase in the number of distinction awards for consultant medical and dental staff. The Nurses Pay Review Body and Armed Forces Pay Review Body also produced a number of recommendations. The Government have accepted all of these recommendations.

    The Government are also committed under the citizens charter to establishing a regular and direct link between a person’s contribution to the quality of services and his or her reward. The review bodies have therefore been asked to consider the longer-term development of performance pay which will make this a reality. The table shows the increases for each group, and their cost.

    Review body |Pay bill increase |Public expenditure

    |1993-94<1> |expenditure cost

    |Per cent. |£ million

    ——————————————————————————————

    Doctors and dentists (DDRB) <2> |1.5 |<3><4>61

    Nurses and allied professions (NAPRB) <2>

    nurses and midwives |1.5 |<3>114

    professions allied to medicine

    (PAMs) |1.5 |<3>12

    Armed forces (AFPRB)<5> |1.5 |85

    School teachers (STRB)<6> |1.5 |<7>157

    <1> Percentages by which the awards would increase the estimated 1993-94 pay bill.

    <2> Great Britain. Northern Ireland health service pay normally follows Great Britain but is decided separately.

    <3> Includes cost of staff in NHS Trusts.

    <4> Figures exclude general medical practitioners’ expenses which are subject to negotiation.

    <5> United Kingdom.

    <6> England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate pay regimes for school teachers.

    <7> Does not include any consequential increases in the paybill of sixth form colleges becoming Further Education Corporations on 1 April.

    The cost of implementing these increases will be met from within the public expenditure planning totals published in the autumn statement.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Inflation – 12 February 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on inflation, made on Friday 12th February 1993.

    QUESTION

    [The Prime Minister was asked about falling inflation]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think most people are surprised by the progress we’ve made on inflation. I feel very strongly about inflation. It’s very fashionable to say hasn’t there been a heavy price paid to get inflation down. I think that’s the wrong question. The question that should be asked would have been, how bad would it have been and for how long if we hadn’t taken action to get inflation down. But it is only two and a bit years ago that we had inflation pushing eleven per cent and a very real fear that it would rise and both in the short term and the long term it’s necessary for the United Kingdom to kill the inflationary psychology that has damaged our economy over the last forty years.

    Time and time again we’ve sprung out of growth into inflation and then into a sharp downturn and I am determined that we will get inflation down to a low bracket and keep it down. It won’t get down to nil and stay to nil, it won’t stay absolutely stable and calm, the economy’s a mobile, living thing but I think you can keep it within very narrow confines and I believe it is important to do so. Important socially, but I think it is also important in terms of international competitiveness as well. We need to have an inflation rate at least as good as our principal competitors if we are to maximise our growth prospects. So they were satisfactory figures today.