Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Joint Declaration with the Russian Federation – 30 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Joint Declaration with the Russian Federation, issued on 30th January 1992.


    JOINT DECLARATION BY THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION:

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Russian Federation are opening a new page in their relations. They have left behind the period of the Cold War, do not threaten each other’s national interests and are committed to universal democratic principles and aspirations.

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Russian Federation, further referred to as the Parties, guided by a spirit of mutual respect and in the interests of developing wide-ranging and friendly relations between their two countries and also their broad cooperation in the international arena, have agreed upon the following:

    I

    1. The Parties recognise that, with the dissolution of the USSR, a group of independent and sovereign states has joined the world community. At the same time, the Russian Federation continues to be responsible in full for the international rights and obligations previously assumed by the Soviet Union.

    2. The Parties declare that the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation are friendly States and partners within the international community. Relations between them will be founded on a shared commitment to the principles of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and also upon respect for the letter and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations, the Helsinki Final Act, the Paris Charter for a New Europe and other documents of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

    3. Between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation there are no ideological barriers, and no political impediments to the growth of friendship and mutual understanding between the British and Russian peoples.

    II

    4. The Parties recognise their special responsibility as Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council for the maintenance of the peace and security of all States and to cooperate in the fulfilment of the principles of justice, democracy and common human values. They will do all in their power to enhance the effectiveness of the United Nations Organisation.

    5. The Parties welcome the transition from confrontation to cooperation in Europe and the world, and the resultant strengthening of the security of all States. They declare that their armed forces are designated purely for defensive purposes. The United Kingdom and the Russian Federation are committed to the principle that the command, control and management of armed forces should be organised within the framework of democratic institutions and the rule of law. The Parties attach the highest importance to the maintenance of international stability and security during this time of deep transformation in Europe and in the former Soviet Union. They declare their commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes by political means and through dialogue.

    6. The Parties intend to undertake all steps necessary to ensure that nuclear weapons, and all other weapons of mass destruction, are held at all times under secure control. They believe that any proliferation of weapons of mass destruction carries serious risks for international peace and security.

    7. The Parties reaffirm their strong commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention of 1972, and their readiness to conclude an agreement on a comprehensive ban on chemical weapons. They will remain in active consultation on these questions, and will also examine the potential for British/Russian cooperation in the destruction and safe disposal of surplus weapons in Russia. The United Kingdom and the Russian Federation will take steps to prevent the transfer to other countries of technology and expert knowledge which could contribute to the development of nuclear armaments and of other types of weapon of mass destruction.

    8. The United Kingdom and the Russian Federation will work together to consolidate and carry forward agreements for the reduction of forces and armaments. They look to the very early ratification and implementation of the CFE Treaty, as well as of the START Agreement and of other measures to reduce nuclear weapons.

    III

    9. The Parties will organise regular exchanges of Ministerial visits. They will encourage inter-Parliamentary cooperation and contacts between legislative and executive bodies in the two countries, and will promote the exchange of experience in the preparation and implementation of legislation. The Parties will give all appropriate assistance to the development of contacts between public and private organisations in the two countries.

    10. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation will hold regular consultations on both bilateral and international questions.

    11. The Parties favour the further development of exchanges between the armed forces and Defence Ministries of the two countries at different levels and will seek to extend the scope and content of these exchanges.

    IV

    12. The Parties share the view that it is the objective of Governments to establish conditions for the development of free enterprise and of the creative abilities of individuals. They are committed to bilateral cooperation in conditions of a free market, economic liberalisation, free trade and sound management.

    The Parties believe that the integration of the Russian Federation in the world economic system is a vital objective. This process will encourage private investment, stimulate trade and assist the more effective utilization of Russia’s large human and natural resources. The United Kingdom will continue to give active support to the Russian Federation’s application for membership at the earliest possible time of the International Monetary Fund, and of other international economic organisations.

    13. The Parties acknowledge that there is potential for a large increase in trade between the two countries. They agree that economic reform, agreement on debt questions and the creation of a clear legal environment for investment will establish conditions for greater involvement by British companies in the Russian Federation.

    14. The Parties consider it especially important that closer relations in different areas should be developed between all the countries of Europe.

    The Russian Federation welcomes the United Kingdom’s longstanding commitment to an outward-looking European Community. The United Kingdom will continue to support the development of effective ties between the European Community and the Russian Federation.

    V

    15. The Parties acknowledge the importance of the early signature of a British/Russian Treaty, designed to consolidate the fundamental principles of future relations between the two countries.

    Signed by:

    JOHN MAJOR, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

    BORIS N YELTSIN, President of the Russian Federation

  • Mr Major’s Statement on President Bush’s Nuclear Policy – 29 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on President Bush’s initiative on strategic nuclear weapons, released on Wednesday 29th January 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I warmly welcome President Bush’s latest proposals for strategic arms reductions and I congratulated the President earlier this week on this important and imaginative initiative.

    The proposals address the key problems facing us in the strategic arena, namely how to increase global security and stability against the uncertain background of events in the former Soviet Union, and how to reduce the threat of nuclear confrontation.

    I very much hope that the CIS leaders will respond positively to this initiative. For my part I will certainly support it in my talks with President Yeltsin on Thursday, 30 January.

    The offer of further agreed reductions in strategic missiles deals with the problem of the most destabilising heavy missiles. This is a matter that is outstanding from the START negotiations. We believe it should be immensely reassuring to the Commonwealth States.

    The President’s measures are a further step in reversing the process of nuclear competition between the superpowers. The security of the world will be greatly enhanced if President Yeltsin agrees to the elimination of multiple-warhead ICBMs – the most destabilising elements of the old Cold War confrontation. The way will then be open for Russia to move with the United States towards a more stable minimum deterrence increasingly concentrated on submarine forces.

    The United Kingdom has always been committed to maintaining only a minimum nuclear deterrent. We announced last Autumn a cut of about half in the number of British sub-strategic weapons. In our view Trident is the minimum strategic deterrent necessary to guarantee this country’s future security.

    The greatest danger we face is not the existence of deterrent forces, but the danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons into the hands of other powers in unstable regions of the world. The President’s very welcome initiative addresses this problem squarely and imaginatively.

  • Mr Major’s Speech on Disability – 29 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on the Employers’ Agenda on Disability, held in London on Wednesday 29th January 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Alistair, thank you very much indeed. When I left Number 10 a few moments ago, one of my Private Secretaries pressed into my hands some notes and he said: “You will find these extremely useful”, and I won’t and I have not read them and I will pass them back.

    Can I pick up some of the things that Alistair Frame said a few moments ago. I think one thing ought to be more readily understood than it is, and that is that disabled people are a resource, not just a difficulty.

    We have a large number of people in this country suffering from one form of disability or another. But within that pool of people suffering that particular disability there is a huge amount of talent, a huge amount of understanding. And quite apart from the personal elements of life, it is a huge waste of a national and economic resource not to use that particular talent.

    And it is perhaps for that reason, amongst others, that I welcome very much what the forum is doing and the lead that it is giving to employers in government I think as well as in local government and in the private sector.

    It is important that we use that resource. Increasingly we have seen over the years how that resource is both necessary in the market and how it is often providing a particular set of skills that may not be so readily available elsewhere.

    So although I congratulate without any reserve the employers who are part of this initiative, I do say to the private sector and the public sector collectively that there is an element of self-interest for all of us in making sure that this enormous resource is properly used in the future.

    I had the privilege, for alas too short a time, of being Minister for the Disabled. There have been very few such Ministers in the history of government, a number on the Labour side, Alf Morrison, his successors, Tony Newton on the Tory side, myself and Nick Scott who is here this evening and has been Minister for some time. And amongst that cross-party alliance there is an extraordinary concurrence of view about what can be done, what has been done and what needs to be done.

    And I believe that the year I spent as Minister for the Disabled was one of the years in politics I have found most rewarding and that I have most enjoyed. One learned a great deal that is not readily apparent.

    I think when one sees at close quarters some of the especial difficulties faced by people who are disabled and one talks to them, one learns something that I think others perhaps do not learn. And that, above all, is what those people who are disabled themselves most want.

    I will tell you firstly what they do not want. They do not want to be patronised, they do not want to be treated as different, they do not want to be felt that special things are being carved out in their direction. What they do want is the opportunity on a level playing field to use their talents and when they use their talents to be fairly rewarded for using their talents and I believe they are absolutely right in each one of those ambitions.

    There is much that has been done, there is a lot still that remains to be done: the 3 percent target across industry and in government is not yet met everywhere. In government, if I may say so, their record is a good deal better than the private sector collectively, indeed it is twice as good as the private sector collectively. But even amongst government departments at the moment only five government departments and agencies meet the 3 percent target, four others are very close to it, others are a little way behind. But we are moving in that direction.

    Some great companies and some small companies in the private sector set an absolutely magnificent example. Many others have not yet followed that example and I for one hope that they will and I hope that they will do so speedily. It is in their interest to do so, I think it is in society’s interest generally that they do so, and I believe it is in the interest of people who are disabled that they do so.

    So I hope that this initiative will spark a further degree of innovation in both the public and the private sector and I would say to its organisers: firstly that the initiative deserves to succeed; and secondly, that insofar as I can, I will give it my fullest backing.

    I hope it achieves, above all, the forum’s prime objective: to help more disabled people get jobs, good jobs, permanent jobs, worthwhile jobs, fulfilling jobs. And once they have got them to have increased access to development and promotion opportunities as well. There is no reason, as we march through the years immediately ahead, where right through the promotion scales of industry and commerce and politics there should not be the same opportunities for people who are disabled as there have traditionally been for people who are not disabled.

    We live in a changing world, a changing country, opportunities differ, industry differs, the structure of the way in which we live our life differs, the capacity to understand and accommodate differences, some of them perhaps disabilities, becomes greater as year succeeds year.

    And I hope the aggregation of those changes will enable more disabled people to fulfil the ambitions that we have for them and perhaps more importantly than that the ambitions that they justifiably have for themselves in the future.

    So I think, if I may, I will end just upon this point. This is a worthwhile initiative, I am grateful to all of you who had a part in framing it and all of you who are here this evening. I hope it is successful, I wish you well in it, I wish your members well in it, and I hope on behalf of all the people who may benefit as a result of it that the success of this is not only outstanding but swift and thank you very much for inviting me this evening.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 28 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th January 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Sellafield

    Mr. McGrady : To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure co-ordination of consideration by the Secretaries of State for Energy, for Environment and for Northern Ireland of the environmental impact of the Sellafield plant on Northern Ireland and the Irish sea.

    The Prime Minister : I am satisfied that suitable mechanisms already exist to achieve the required co-ordination.

     

    Bingham Inquiry

    Mr. Vaz : To ask the Prime Minister on what date he gave his evidence to the Bingham inquiry ; and if he will place a copy of his evidence in the Library.

    The Prime Minister : I have nothing to add to the letter I sent the hon. Member on 22 January, a copy of which has been placed in the House Library.

     

    Hong Kong

    Mr. Dobson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the visits made to Hong Kong by Government Ministers since June 1987 giving the date and purpose of the visit in each case.

    The Prime Minister : The following Government Ministers visited Hong Kong since June 1987 on Government business :

    Ministerial Visits to Hong Kong

    1987 (from June) :

    Lord Glenarthur, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in September.

    1988 :

    Sir Geoffrey Howe, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in May ; Lord Glenarthur, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in February and June ; Mr. Chris Patten, Minister for Overseas Development, in September ; Lord Young, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in June ; Mr. Cecil Parkinson, Secretary of State for Energy, in June ; Mr. George Younger, Secretary of State for Defence, in March ; Mr. Archie Hamilton, Minister of State for the Armed Forces, in March ; Mr. Ian Stewart, Minister of State for the Armed Forces, in January ; Mr. Peter Morrison, Minister of State for Energy, in September ; Mr. Wyn Roberts, Minister of State, Welsh Office, in September ; Mr. John Macgregor, Minister for Agriculture, in September ; Mr. Paul Channon, Secretary of State for Transport, in November ; Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Secretary of State for the Environment, in December ; Mr. Francis Maude, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in September.

    1989 :

    Lord Mackay, Lord Chancellor, in December ; Sir Geoffrey Howe, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in July ; Lord Young, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in April ; Lord Glenarthur, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in January ; and his successor, Mr. Francis Maude, in September ; Mr. Peter Viggers, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Industry, in November ; and Mr. Richard Needham, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in December. 1990 :

    Mr. Douglas Hurd, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in January ; Mr. Michael Howard, Secretary of State for Employment, in September ; Mr. Francis Maude, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in April and July ; and his successor, Lord Caithness, in September ; Mr. Tim Sainsbury, Minister for Trade and Mr. David Mellor, Minister for the Arts, in September ; Mr. Peter Lloyd, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Home Office, in March and Mr. John Maples, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in November.

    1991 :

    I visited in September ; Mr. Douglas Hurd, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in April and September ; Mr. Michael Heseltine, Secretary of State for the Environment, in September ; Mr. Tom King, Secretary of State for Defence, in September ; Mr. John Wakeham, Secretary of State for Energy, in November ; Mr. John Gummer, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in October ; and Lord Caithness, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in January, July and December.

     

    Departmental Information Systems

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the current state of implementation of FAMIS–financial and management information systems–or its equivalent in each of Her Majesty’s Government’s Departments ; and what proposals he has to develop the system.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 27 January 1992] : Following the financial management initiative, most Departments have been developing financial and management information systems, although there is no single model. Executive agencies set up under the “next steps” initiative are now doing the same. Such systems require continuing development to clarify managerial responsibility, to give better information on how to improve value for money and quality of service from the resources consumed, and to meet changing business needs. The Government will continue to encourage the effort being devoted to developing such systems.

  • PMQT – 28 January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 28th January 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Ronnie Campbell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

    Mr. Campbell : Is the Prime Minister aware that people in my constituency of Blyth Valley eagerly await the RECHAR money? As there is a split in his Cabinet will he get off his backside, stop swanning around that desert island and have the money paid?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the RECHAR money has been paid by Britain into the European Community and that we should have it back. I hope that Commissioner Millan will release it speedily.

    Sir William Shelton : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we already see benefits flowing from the citizens charter? I refer, for instance, to shorter hospital waiting lists and to school performance league tables. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what future benefits–proven benefits–the people of this country will see flowing from the citizens charter?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are determined to get the best possible value for the enormous amount of public money that is available at present. In addition to the improved information and guidance systems that we have already set up, there will be much more flexible opening hours in the case of tax offices, benefits offices and employment service offices, and a much more detailed and personal service for the taxpayer, who has the cost of those services compulsorily extracted in taxes from his or her pocket.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister now give a categoric assurance that he will not impose any increase in VAT? Will he please answer yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : We have no plans to increase value added tax.

    Mr. Kinnock : Why cannot the Prime Minister give a straight answer to a straight question? Is he aware that the words he has just used are exactly the same as those that were used by his predecessor just before her Government increased VAT? Why cannot he tell us now what his plans are? Or is he trying to forget that the Government have increased VAT five times in 13 years? Is not that why everyone has good reason to know that Tory Governments mean higher VAT?

    The Prime Minister : There will be no VAT increase. Unlike the Labour party, we have published our spending plans and there is no need for us to raise VAT to meet them. So that the right hon. Gentleman is in no doubt, I tell him that I have no plans to raise the top rate of tax or the level of national insurance contributions.

    Mr. Kinnock : It is time that the Prime Minister came clean with the country. In view of the record of Conservative Governments in always putting up VAT and in view of the Prime Minister’s promises on other aspects of policy, how can he pretend that his intention is not to put up VAT? Do not a Tory Government make VAT rises a certainty?

    The Prime Minister : Before the right hon. Gentleman carries that fib any further, does he recall a further and earlier prediction about value added tax? I quote :

    “Labour foresees 60 per cent. VAT. VAT could rise to 60 per cent. if radical tax changes are introduced by a new Tory Government.” The right hon. Gentleman may recall that prediction by his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) before the previous election. That was also the time when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook claimed that Labour would win by a landslide in the 1987 election. He was wrong on both points then and he is wrong now.

    Mr. Gerald Bowden : Does my right hon. Friend agree–

    [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask the House to settle down.

    Mr. Bowden : Does my right hon. Friend agree– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Bowden : Does my right hon. Friend agree that a party’s commitment to public services is best judged by its record in government? Will my right hon. Friend consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ascertain who controls the 20 authorities that have the highest community charge, the highest rent arrears and more vacant properties than any other authorities? Does my borough of Southwark feature among them?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend makes a sound and fair point. All too often, Labour-controlled councils provide shoddy services at far too high a cost. I well recall the Opposition saying, “If you wish to see what a Labour Government would be like, look at Labour local government.”

    Mr. Ashdown : On the subject of predictions, and while the Prime Minister reflects today on the gloomy report by the Confederation of British Industry, does he recall on new year’s day this year saying on Radio 4 that in retrospect, we would look back and say that the economic recovery had already started? In retrospect, does the Prime Minister agree that he might spend less time talking up false economic dawns and more time taking action for economic recovery?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is becoming a professional gloom monger. When we look back to the present, it will be perfectly clear that in many sectors of the economy, the recovery has indeed started.

    Mr. Onslow : Does my right hon. Friend remember that when the investment income surcharge was abolished in 1984, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer described it as an unfair and anomalous tax on savings and on the rewards of personal enterprise? What would he say today to anyone who was stupid enough to recommit himself to reintroducing it, as Labour has done?

    The Prime Minister : I would certainly find that extraordinary. I would find it even more extraordinary from a party that claims to care about investment, yet clearly has no understanding that investment comes from savings.

     

    Q2. Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

    Mr. Livingstone : Given the commitment in the citizen’s charter to parental choice in education, will the Prime Minister agree to meet a small delegation of parents from William Gladstone school which has an excellent academic record and an expanding roll but which faces closure as Brent council wishes to sell the school because of its site value?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be happy to see the hon. Member concerned.

    Mr. Michael Morris : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the greatest service he can continue to do for the British public is to keep inflation below 5 per cent? Is he further aware that the public remembers that inflation under Labour was 15 per cent., 20 per cent. and 25 per cent? In order to keep the level of inflation down, will he have a look at what is happening with the six major grocery chains, the increased share of the margins that they are getting and the fact that their margins are now twice the level found in the major grocery chains throughout Europe?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend says, inflation is low and we are determined that it will stay low. He will recall that inflation never fell below 7.4 per cent., and that for only a very brief period, while the Labour party was in Government.

    I will certainly look at the point that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

     

    Q3. Ms Hoey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Ms Hoey : Before the Prime Minister retires to his desert island, taking with him his Trollope and a very large section of my constituency– without my permission–will he give a clear and simple statement about what he will offer to pensioners so that they can retire with some luxury? Will he match Labour’s commitment to pensions?

    The Prime Minister : A commitment to pensions means nothing if it is not matched by a commitment to low inflation.

    Mr. Devlin rose–[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member has not asked a question of the Prime Minister for many months, and not in this Session, unlike some other hon. Members, now shouting “Marginal seat.”

    Mr. Devlin : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at the study in The Financial Times on 6 January which pointed to the fact that the northern region has very much benefited from the economic restructuring of the 1980s and is now coming out of recession faster than any other part of the country, due to the success of the regeneration programmes that the Government have put in place in the region?

    The Prime Minister : I have seen that myself in visits to the north. There is no doubt that the north has seen the start of many good things in this country and I am certain that it will be the same again with the economic recovery.

     

    Q4. Mr. McKelvey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

    Mr. McKelvey : Can the Prime Minister confirm that last Wednesday he had lunch with Lord Rothermere? Did he take the opportunity on that occasion to co-ordinate the campaign of lies and vilification that the Rothermere press has been conducting against the Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : I took the opportunity to enjoy an excellent luncheon. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Sir John Farr : As my right hon. Friend prepares himself for the important meeting with President Yeltsin later this week in London, will he take the opportunity of seeing what can be done to deal with the massive threat which still exists from all the different independent Russian states?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend says, this will be an important opportunity to discuss with President Yeltsin both the international difficulties posed by the break-up of the old Soviet Union and the extent to which the west might usefully help the Russian Republic in the difficulties that it faces at present. I anticipate that both those matters will be on our agenda.

     

    Q5. Mr. Bernie Grant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January.

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

    Mr. Grant : Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Labour-controlled Haringey council and the children, teachers and parents of Haringey on the fact that our schools came joint top in English, maths and science in the level 3 standard assessment test and top in the individual subject of science? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a remarkable achievement, bearing in mind the fact that Haringey is an inner-London borough and has all the associated problems? Is not he ashamed at the remarks of his predecessor and of his ministerial colleagues who have constantly criticised Haringey’s education policy and have cut its revenue support grant? Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that Haringey receives an increase in its revenue support grant and standard spending assessment as a result of its excellent work in educating the children at its schools?

    The Prime Minister : I am delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I am especially pleased to hear that he now supports the tests introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I can tell from what he said that he is a strong supporter of the parents charter, without which those results might not have been fully known.

    Mr. Conway : Will my right hon. Friend take time to congratulate British industry on the fact that it has achieved record exports in the past quarter, that 27 of the top 50 European companies are British and that Britain exports more of its national product than Japan? Are not those successful British companies sick and tired of being talked down by the doom-monger Labour party?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is right. Yesterday’s trade figures showed clearly that export volumes were at record levels even in a worldwide economic downturn. My hon. Friend was also right about some Opposition Members talking down the economy. The Leader of the Opposition said in his letter to supporters at the beginning of this year that Britain had a £20 billion trade deficit, when the truth was that the deficit fell by a half and the right hon. Gentleman’s figures were wholly wrong. Perhaps he will now write again to his supporters and correct his error.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Economist Conference on the Citizen’s Charter – 27 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made to The Economist Conference on the Streamlining of the Public Sector on Monday 27th January 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    PUBLIC SERVICES ON THE MOVE: THE CITIZEN’S CHARTER

    Mr Chairman, four years ago, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I was the guardian of the public purse. I spoke then about the importance of high quality public services. Some people were surprised at such a speech from a Minister with responsibility for public expenditure. But it was right. And the fact that so many people running great enterprises, public and private, are here this morning shows that we are right to insist that people deserve better value for money and more accountable management standards in our public services.

    The Citizen’s Charter is a blueprint to deliver higher standards. Some services – like the National Health Service and social security – cross the nation. Others are the prerogative of Town Halls and local authorities.

    But wherever they may be, there is excuse for accepting second-rate performance. It’s economically wasteful. It’s socially unacceptable. And it’s a poor use of the many talented people who work in the public sector.

    The Citizen’s Charter reflects a determination to improve public service. For me, that was not a new concept. It arose from experience – as a user of public services, as a provider of them in local Government, and, finally, as a Minister.

    My views have not changed on substance over the years. Nor have my convictions. I believed then and I believe now that too often providers of public service fail to understand, or ignore, the interests and concerns of the public they are there to serve.

    Let me give you an example. Too often the public are treated as if they were the lucky recipients of a free service. But they are not. They’re paying for it with their own money compulsorily taken from them in taxes. They are entitled to be treated as credit-worthy customers who’ve paid in advance.

    Mr Chairman, the Citizen’s Charter came about because I was consistently receiving the same strong message. That it was high time to raise standards of performance in our public services. That was the demand of the consumer. And it was also the wish of those who work in the public sector themselves. They had the skills, the dedication, and the enthusiasm to do it. All they needed was the freedom and the encouragement to try out new ideas. The Citizen’s Charter gives them the chance.

    CITIZEN’S CHARTER PRINCIPLES

    What the Charter does is to underline the need for:

    – published standards

    – consulting users and customers

    – increased openness

    – more and better information

    – more and better choice

    – greater accessibility and

    – greater responsiveness when things go wrong.

    These are things we want to see underpinning not some – but all of our public services.

    THE CHARTER’S POLICY MEASURES

    But our White Paper is more than a set of principles. It is an ambitious programme of action to raise the standard of service right across the public sector. It includes some huge commitments:

    The privatisation of British Rail and British Coal. The deregulation and privatisation of London Buses. These will be priorities in the next Parliament. But the main thrust of the Charter is to empower the individual.

    – So it includes also laws to let the public see league tables comparing the standards of service of their local authority with that of others.

    – And, for the first time ever, reforms that will bring about the regular independent inspection of all Britain’s schools.

    – It contains radical reforms which will limit the monopoly of the Post Office.

    – It proposes new powers for citizens to challenge unlawful strikes in the public sector. When the next Parliament is formed, they, too will become law.

    Last July I made it clear that a programme on this scale would take time to deliver. But we must deliver it – and we will. The Citizen’s Charter will be at the heart of this Government’s policy making throughout the 1990s.

    Sometimes people find it hard to relate great policy ideas to everyday life. There is a tendency to be shy of new concepts. People were shy of privatisation. Yet they should remember privatisation has created a nation of shareholders and put telephone kiosks that work in every high street in Britain. Deregulation has opened up the motorways to long-distance coach travel.

    But those benefits were not always seen at first. Indeed, they were bitterly resisted. It is always less trouble to stick to the status quo. But today those ideas are not only accepted, they are imitated right across the world. It will be the same with the Citizen’s Charter. There’s always resistance to good ideas. Wherever we find it, we will beat it. And I have no doubt that the ideas in the Charter will be imitated in other countries too. They are already catching the fancy of policy makers not least in the United States.

    The Charter builds on and takes forward our privatisation and contracting out plans. The White Paper on Competing for Quality, will lead to more buying in of outside skills and a bigger role for the private sector. I want to see much more market testing in the years ahead. In central Government as well as in services outside. And. we are making the way easier for private firms to bid for business. Whitehall has been told to be open to their ideas.

    But the Charter is not only about big policy developments. It also addresses directly some of the smaller things that cause so much irritation in everyday life. Again, an example makes the point. Take fixed appointment times for the man from the gas board or the electricity board. When we were working on the Charter we were told these were unthinkable. Fixed appointment times? Over the years consumers have learned to be grateful if they ever came? Were we mad? The public didn’t want them, they said. The unions wouldn’t like it. These latter day Mr Bumbles were shocked at the consumer demanding more. Whatever next Oliver? A proper service? Now, East Midlands Electricity has shown that it is perfectly possible to get the electricity man to call at a specific time of day, if that’s what the customer wants.

    And take another frustration of everyday life: motorway cones. Sometimes one could be forgiven for believing they had taken over the roads and were marching on the towns.

    So we listened and acted. As a result, £70 million worth of motorists’ time has already been saved by using lane rental. So we must do more of it. And there are other things we can do. A recent piece of work on the M1, with traditional methods, would have taken over 5 days to complete, and cost £25,000. Using rolling lane closure, the work was done in 3 hours and cost just £5,000. We are looking to the Department of Transport to press on fast with all the Citizen’s Charter’s new ideas for handling roadworks better.

    PROGRESS : HEALTH

    Then there’s the Charter’s influence on the Health Service: From this April, all hospitals will have to display publicly their local charter standards. From this April people will be given individual appointment times for out patient visits. No more turning up at 9 am and finding twenty other people there with the same appointment time. And from this April, there will be guaranteed maximum waiting times for hospital treatments. In Scotland there will be maximum waiting times for a number of specified operations. All this is spelt out in the Patient’s Charter which has gone to every home in the land. A better service. A more personal service. And more dignity, too.

    The Health Service must hit the targets that the White Paper set. And then we must go further. I can tell you today that we are launching a new research study into why patients have to wait so long between referral by their GP and seeing a consultant. The time varies considerably. Why? I want to know. And when we know we must put it right. I want to see improvements made.

    Changes like these take effort, commitment, skill, organisation. They mean a shift in approach on the part of a great many people up and down the NHS. Well, it’s happening. There’s a new mood of confidence in a Health Service that is responding to the challenges that the Citizen’s Charter has set. And there will be many more to come.

    EDUCATION

    Then consider education. In no area have the Charter’s proposals received wider public support. Parents now have a right to see governors’ annual reports, which include the exam results in their school. From July all parents will have the right to an annual report on their child’s progress; and, from this autumn, tables comparing the exam results of different schools will be published every year in the local paper. Next year, the comparative tables will include truancy figures and information on where pupils go when they leave school. National Curriculum test results will be published as soon as they become available.

    You may be surprised that it was ever thought unsafe for parents and public to know this sort of thing. Well, I think I can tell you why. It was inconvenient to some of the providers. It might expose poor performance to the criticism it deserved. But poor performance should be exposed if we are to correct it.

    It is those attitudes that the Citizen’s Charter is challenging. We are giving parents a greatly increased voice in their children’s education – a voice they should never have lost. And at the same time we are also letting employers, local business people and so on – see how effective their schools are.

    OTHER MEASURES

    There are other simple but necessary things we’re doing.

    Public services are much more human if they come with a name to them. Anonymity can be intimidating. Very shortly 35,000 Employment service local office staff will be wearing name badges. And all other parts of the public service are doing the same.

    We are going to provide more flexible opening hours in tax offices, Jobcentres, benefit offices and driving test centres. Flexible hours to provide a better service.

    We are seeing standards set in areas where people said it couldn’t be done. For example, the Kent Police will answer all 999 calls within 10 seconds and will attend all incidents that require a rapid response in no more than 20 minutes – 10 minutes in towns.

    We’re making radical changes in inspection. Not just by making sure that the standards are checked in every British school. But also by introducing outsiders – professionals, users, commonsense citizens – into other inspectorates as well. I believe it is quite wrong that professions – like police, social work, or probation – should be inspected only by the providers themselves. They must be subject to independent inspection – to reassure the public and encourage the best performance.

    Other tough targets are being bettered. In 1989 it took some 3 1/2 weeks to get a passport. Now it takes just 7 days. Document processing used to take Companies House a month on average. Last financial year this figure was cut to just one week. Huge improvements in service, not dependent on extra resources. Just good management and a willing response from staff.

    The list could go on.

    WHERE NEXT

    Mr Chairman, ten days ago, I brought a number of my colleagues together with senior officials to assess progress on the Charter. We agreed that we must develop some of the many new ideas that they put forward. And we decided to hold these top-level meetings regularly so that progress would be maintained.

    Last Friday Michael Heseltine unveiled the Tenant’s Charter. This tells council tenants what they have a right to expect from their housing authorities. That they must be kept informed of any major changes that landlords propose to make to their homes or their estates; that they have a right to carry out improvements to their homes, or to swap their homes if they wish to move house to another area.

    Today sees the launch of the Benefits Agency Charter. It lays out clearly the service that benefit claimants are entitled to expect. And it sets specific service standards for speed and accuracy of benefit delivery.

    Other initiatives will follow, including, on Wednesday publication by the Customs of a charter for travellers.

    People are being given information about services that no one has bothered to tell them before. For the future:

    We want even more, and better information. There will be:

    – a video which explains how the tax system works, so that those running small businesses can more easily manage their tax affairs;

    – and a video about the way the courts work, to help those who come once in a lifetime as jurors or witnesses to understand what goes on and to find their way around.

    – In Wales there is to be a code of good practice in planning cases for local authorities. League tables will be published so that, once more, we can put pressure on the worst authorities to catch up with the best.

    – We will soon see a new Passenger’s Charter published. This will set out clearly the standards that British Rail’s passengers are entitled to expect, and make BR account for its performance against them. And it will also improve significantly the terms of compensation they should make available to passengers who suffer worst from train delays.

    – And Charter’s principles should also help the businessman as citizen. He has to deal with many rules and regulations administered by local authorities. In some areas systems are being developed so that a business getting approval from one authority will know that it is valid for others. I want to see such systems, which are currently voluntary, extended more and more widely. Businesses simply cannot understand it when different authorities apply the same laws in different ways. It adds to business costs and detracts from competitiveness. Local authorities need to work with business in smoothing out difficulties that stop firms getting on with their main job – trading.

    – Finally, we are going to make sure that rewards in the public sector are related to performance. Increasingly, peoples’ pay must be linked to giving high quality service. Doing a job of quality must be seen to matter more than doing a job. There will be strict, but fair criteria. But those who work well should earn more than those who don’t. I intend that performance pay should apply more widely in public service – not just in Whitehall, but on the underground and the railways as well.

    THE CHARTER MARK AWARD

    I can also announce today a reward for excellence. It will be known as the Charter Mark award. It will be open to all public services that serve their customers direct. It will be challenging to achieve. In the first year some 50 Charter Marks will be awarded. Only the highest standards of performance will be considered. The winners will have to improve even more. Year on year improvement in the quality of their services. Customer satisfaction.

    And they will have to submit plans for future improvements without cost to the taxpayer.

    I hope many public sector services will apply for the Charter Mark. Not just the big ones. And not just the obvious ones. There are individual schools, hospitals, Agencies, and local authority services, which may not be well known nationally but which provide a service of which they can be proud. I want their efforts to be recognised. To be examples for others to follow.

    RESOURCES

    Mr Chairman, it is the taxpayer who meets the cost of public service – good or bad. Poor public services do not come free, any more than good ones do. And they will cost more. They mean too much time wasted, too many complaints, paying twice over to put right the mistakes made first time round.

    The best effective way to operate is to get things right first time. So let us hear no more of the phoney argument that you can only make things better by spending more money. Politeness. Keeping promises. Giving the right information. Answering letters promptly. These things don’t cost money. They are the everyday currency of decent services. And they must become universal.

    Nor do I believe that people take a proper pride in their work if they are no more than a nameless face or an illegible squiggle at the foot of the letter. With the Citizen’s Charter, public service is taking pride in its work. It now showing it is ready to take responsibility. Ready to trust the public. It’s the beginning of the end of the faceless bureaucrat.

    CHARTERLINE

    I know all too well the frustration that ordinary people feel when they find themselves up against a blank wall of bureaucracy. Passed from pillar to post when they try to get an answer to a simple question, or a problem solved. So we will soon be publishing a paper setting out some ideas for helping people in a quick and simple way, when they get caught in the system. We will also introduce, at first on a pilot basis, a new telephone helpline – the “Charterline”. It will tell people about the Citizen’s Charter, the many different measures it contains and how they can pursue questions that they have in mind.

    CONCLUSION

    The Citizen’s Charter is only six months old. It is still in its infancy. But its effects are building up fast. And people in the public sector know that it is here to stay.

    We will see to it that it works. Where we need to we will legislate. We will contract out when appropriate. We’ll toughen up inspection and further empower the regulators of public utilities where public choice is limited. We’ll set standards and publish results so that the success of every service can be measured and improved.

    And will this all make it work? Yes, certainly it will. Because the Charter ideas are right. Because the public know they are right. Because people want to make it happen. Because hundreds of thousands of people in public service have a commitment to make it happen.

    Already the Citizen’s Charter is changing public service. Step by step. But surely and certainly. More ideas will follow. With political impetus the process of change is now unstoppable.

    And I promise – the impetus will be there.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 27 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 27th January 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    UN Security Council

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to his oral reply to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), Official Report, 14 January 1992, column 807, he will set out the policies he plans to propose to the special summit of the permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations on (a) improving good government, (b) improving human rights and (c) disarmament and non-proliferation; and whether he has consulted any non-governmental organisations or specialist independent institutions to help develop such proposals.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 24 January 1992] : I shall make clear at the meeting of the Security Council on 31 January the importance that the Government attach to good government, human rights, arms control and non-proliferation in the maintenance of international peace and security. Our policies on these matters are well known and benefit from our valuable dialogue with a range of non-governmental organisations.

     

    World Commission on Environment and Development

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer on 15 January, Official Report, column 579, if he will set out (a) the amount of financial support and (b) the types of other support, Her Majesty’s Government plans to give organisers of the reconvention of the World Commission on Environment and Development in London in April.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 24 January 1992] : The Department of the Environment is contributing £30,000 to the costs of the London meeting of the World Commission on Environment and Development in April. In addition the Government will be hosting engagements for the commissioners.

     

    UN Environment and Development Conference

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 January, Official Report, column 579, if he will give the names of the organisations to which reports of the preparatory committee meetings of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development have been distributed and the cost of this distribution to date.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 24 January 1992] : The United Kingdom for United Nations Environment Programme has circulated reports on UNCED preparatory committee meetings to nearly 2000 organisations, under its contract with the Department of the Environment to keep the non-governmental community informed on preparations for UNCED.

  • Mr Major’s NCVQ Speech – 23 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech on education at the Cafe Royal on 23rd January 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prefatory Remarks

    Mr Chairman, this is the second opportunity I have had to speak on educational matters here at the Cafe Royal. It’s a splendid location, and rather apt for your proceedings today. It has lots of levels. When I spoke last time I was at level 6 but now I find myself down at level 4. I hope this downwards progression doesn’t give the wrong signal to all those people working hard to move upwards through the NVQ levels.

    Introduction

    Mr Chairman, many of you will know by now that I believe it is vital that we continue to raise standards in education and training. The reason for this is clear. It is because I believe that every young man and woman has talents, in-built talents, which we all want to see them develop to the full.

    But there is another reason too: it is because I know – as all those of you in business know – that in this competitive world our country is involved in an unending struggle for markets. And in that struggle it is the businesses and services which offer quality that win.

    Business success will increasingly rest on people at every level who are equipped with good training and good qualifications. Qualifications that carry esteem, are coherently structured and capable of being updated throughout working life.

    For individuals, education and training are the gateways to opportunity and progress.

    For employers, a well-educated, well-trained workforce is their lifeblood.

    We live in a time of rapid and expanding technological change. No one should underestimate the scale of the challenges that we face. But nor should we underestimate our capacity to meet those challenges. We in Britain can develop the skills of our young people and of our workforce at least as effectively as any of our rivals. And we must.

    Opportunity for All

    Eight months ago, together with Michael Howard and Kenneth Clarke, I launched the Government’s White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century. We had two overriding aims. To give much greater priority to the needs of the 16 to 19 year age group.

    And at the same time to break down those artificial barriers which for too long had divided an academic education from a vocational one, and which treated those who followed the vocational route almost as second-class citizens.

    The themes which run through that White Paper are at the very heart of this Government’s philosophy and of the society in which we believe. A society without barriers. In which opportunities are available for all. In which high standards are expected and become the norm. In which people – whatever their background and wherever they work – can make the very most of their abilities.

    When I left school at 16, I was lucky. There were people to encourage me to work for qualifications. Not all young people are so lucky. I want to see us develop the framework that will give them the incentive and encouragement to get qualified – and encourage employers to help them on their way. Today more young people stay on at school, but there are still far too many 16 year-olds who bale out as soon as they can. And too many of those are never able to recapture the opportunities they have lost.

    Parity of Esteem for Vocational Training

    So as we prepare for the twenty-first century we must see that young people have the opportunity for further education, or training in job-related skills, to the very best of their capability. And if they are to have real choice, vocational education must become a high status route to follow.

    Why? Because it is important if we are to encourage the right people to develop the right skills. In this country we have always failed to give status to the practical as compared with the academic and the professional careers. All that is changing. Must change. These old-fashioned prejudices and snobberies can have no place in the world of education and should have no place in our society.

    Good vocational education is not inferior in status to good academic education. I hold vocational qualifications in trades, crafts and business in very high regard. The next generation must be able to decide between academic and vocational education and training without distinction or reserve – choosing a course of the kind that suits their own temperament and aptitude.

    That is our objective. But if the vocational route is to have equal status we must offer a range of qualifications that is both wide – yet at the same time easily recognised, understood and esteemed. Anonymous qualifications are not valued.

    It also means developing a system by which people’s acquisition of skills through life can be measured and recorded. We want to create a ladder of opportunity which encourages each and every young person to climb rung by rung – higher, in the end, than he or she may have thought possible at the start. We want to see learning and development treated as a life-long process.

    Employers as well as students stand to gain from such a system. They need a comprehensive and coherent framework of qualifications. Standards set by industry, to meet the needs of industry.

    It was Government that began this reform. But it is the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, in partnership with employers, that is turning Government vision into practical reality. I believe that we are now creating the most effective and flexible system of vocational qualifications in the world.

    Mr Chairman, we set you and your Council a challenge in our White Paper last year: that the system of national vocational qualifications which you have been developing since 1987 should spread right across industry and be within the grasp of all. The aim, stated in the White Paper, was to cover 80 per cent of the work force by the end of 1992. There were some who said that it simply could not be done. But it will be done. And I warmly congratulate you on reaching the 50 per cent milestone which John Hillier announced this morning. That is tremendous progress. I am confident that by the end of this year you will have reached 80 per cent coverage.

    And the purpose of this Conference is to make sure that the new system is used to full effect. Everyone here is aware that the skills of our people are the most valuable national asset of all.

    Of course, in one respect the future for today’s young people will differ from everything known before. Never again will a qualification once earned be sufficient for a lifetime. Training, re-training, updating will become increasingly necessary. In nearly all aspects of endeavour life-long learning will be needed.

    Quality and Choice in School

    The foundations for that must be laid in school. Our programme of reform in education, carried further in the Citizen’s Charter, will ensure that all schools concentrate on getting the basic things right. Step by step, Ken Clarke has been applying this principle to all age-groups in schools. From next September all pupils aged 14 will be following the National Curriculum course in English, maths and science. We will have clear national standards for the teaching of this key age-group on the threshold of decisions about their future education and working lives.

    But we are broadening as well as deepening the National Curriculum. Since 1990, all our 11 year-olds have been studying Technology, starting out for example on electronics, computer-aided design or working with metal and textiles. From 1993, technology will be extended to the curriculum for 14 year-olds – and will lead to GCSE or vocational qualifications.

    And we intend to enhance choice by developing a new breed of schools which will specialise in technology. The idea builds directly on our experience with City Technology Colleges. CTCs have become beacons of excellence in this field. We want to light more such beacons around the country.

    We are therefore committing 25 million to provide capital funding for a number of existing schools, which want to enhance their technology equipment and facilities. These will be chosen from amongst schools with a clear commitment to technology teaching. This initiative, I am happy to say, has attracted support from a number of industrial companies.

    The successful voluntary aided schools have already been announced. But I am particularly pleased today to be able to announce that 18 grant-maintained schools have now been chosen for the coming year.

    Good grounding is essential. But it is not good enough, if education stops at 16. By 1990, 60 per cent of 16 year-olds in England chose to stay on in full-time education and training. That is a sea-change from 1980 when it was only 40 per cent. And in 1990 no less than 90 per cent were doing some kind of education or training at least part-time. That was an investment in their future – in Britain’s future.

    As more young people stay on, one of the difficult decisions they face is how best to develop their skills. The choice of one route or the other is rarely clear cut. It’s hard to decide at 16 whether to study for higher education or to train for a job. Options need to be kept open. That was why we announced in the White Paper that we would develop a new system of more general vocational qualifications.

    New General NVQs

    These new vocational qualifications are designed mainly for young people still in full-time education. They are designed to be worked for in school or college rather than on the job.

    I can tell you today that we will be introducing the first General National Vocational Qualifications from September in a number of further education colleges and schools. Initially they will be at Level 3. They will be distinct from the existing NVQs, which are specific to a particular job or type of work. They will cover five broad areas – business and administration; manufacturing technology; health and social care; leisure and tourism; and art and design. And these new qualifications will be much more widely available from September 1993.

    The new courses will be structured to appeal to young people across a range of abilities. They will not replace GCSE, or our highly-valued A-levels but will run alongside them, thus widening choice. But some very able students may prefer them to the academic approach of A levels. I am confident that they will also appeal to many employers as a prelude to specific on-the-job training.

    But let me make it clear. This new qualification will not be an easy option. The aim is to offer young people the genuine choice between worthwhile, high-standard qualifications, along both the academic and the vocational paths. Qualifications of equal value – achieved at the end of courses of equal rigour. That way, they will attract equal esteem. Each offering the individual the opportunity to go as far as his or her own abilities allow. That was the vision in the White Paper. And – through NVQs and their new general equivalent in colleges and schools, that is what we are on target to deliver.

    Advanced Diploma

    We also announced in the White Paper our intention to introduce Diplomas to enhance the choice between an academic and a vocational education. There has been great interest in the idea of an Advanced Diploma which could be achieved either by those studying for A levels or by those who choose instead to study for NVQs. We intend to press forward now with the Advanced Diploma so that the first awards can be made in 1994.

    After consultation, we have decided what the qualifications for an Advanced Diploma should be. On the one hand, three advanced GCE passes (of which two may be only at A/S level); or, on the other, an NVQ at level three.

    On top of that, however, we shall also require a given level of attainment in English, mathematics and a modern foreign language from all those applying for a diploma -whether they have chosen the academic or vocational route. The evidence for this might come from GCSE, from A or A/S levels, or from within NVQ courses. Kenneth Clarke and Michael Howard will be consulting SEAC and NCVQ on the specific requirements.

    Attainment in English, maths and a foreign language will be assisted by the revision of GCSE for which I called last July. Work on this is progressing well. The new courses will begin in September this year. There will be a wider range of papers, so that we can not only cater for weaker candidates but also stretch the most able. There will be a sharp reduction in the proportion of marks awarded for coursework, and a rigorous examination at the end of the course. And the new GCSE will be related to the clear standards laid down under the National Curriculum.

    The National Record of Achievement

    But I believe that it is not just formal qualifications that give the measure of the individual. Almost a year ago, Michael Howard launched the idea of a National Record of Achievement for young people. Such records would give them credit for their many informal achievements, which are not reflected in exams, diplomas or degrees – but which may be just as important to them – and to their employers, too. Voluntary work, for example. Excellence in sport. The enterprise shown by pupils in running a business at schools. Or the leadership of an employee who heads up a project team. These are individual records. They foster pride in past achievement and encourage future effort. In a few short months this idea has become a phenomenal success. Over 2 million record forms have so far been ordered – by many thousands of schools, and more than 600 firms.

    I want to encourage this trend. But that is not really a job for government. So we are today inviting your Council, Mr Chairman, to take responsibility for its future development. I know you will work hard to spread the use of National Records of Achievement, so that they become a permanent and valued feature of the landscape of personal achievement.

    Taken together, the extension of NVQs, the new general qualification, the Advanced Diploma, and the Record of Achievement are all substantial initiatives. But we intend to carry the underlying philosophy further and deeper into training through life.

    Training and Enterprise Councils have given local employers a key place in establishing patterns of training that are suitable for their area. At the same time, our new pilot project with Training Credits will give young people the purchasing power to become investors in their own future. They will have the choice as to how they use this new opportunity.

    And we have evolved other innovative ways of creating new incentives for people to invest in their own training and development. Career Development Loans, for example. And, from April this year, a new tax relief for the fees which individuals pay for training leading to NVQs.

    These increasingly open and flexible approaches to learning are bringing better education and training within reach of all – even to those who once would have been prevented by work or domestic circumstances from pursuing them. Now qualifications that count can be gained by anyone who can demonstrate competence -whether it was gained under formal instruction or whilst doing a job.

    The Role of Employers

    It is right that employers should be involved in defining the standards of occupational competence. And I should like to add my personal thanks today to the thousands of employers who are actively engaged in that work.

    I believe that so many employers are sharing this commitment because they recognise the benefits which the new qualifications can bring. Real tangible benefits, which some are already enjoying.

    Being able to match people’s skills much more closely to the needs of their business.

    Knowing exactly what additional training anyone needs in order to move to another job.

    Choosing the most appropriate form of training.

    Knowing that people have been trained systematically to clearly defined high standards.

    Working through qualifications developed by and for the real world of employment. They are already in regular use in key sectors such as retailing, catering and construction. But the success of our reforms hinges on the wider use and understanding of the qualifications which we are developing.

    The Skills Revolution

    This Government has launched a Skills Revolution – a revolution that is gathering momentum year by year. And yet, in truth, to say that under-states what is happening. For it is really two revolutions which are happening together. A revolution among individuals, who are demanding and playing a much greater part in their own training and development. And a revolution among employers who are training their employees as never before. I have no doubt that employers must be in the lead in this skills revolution.it That is why I have supported strongly the establishment and development of TECs. And why this Government will always resist a return to the old centralist policies of compulsory training levies and bureaucratic control that some still seek. Industry is proving its commitment to high quality training. And it is doing that, too, by the support that it is giving to this Council.

    You, Mr Chairman, can be sure of this Government’s support in the work you still have ahead. For your council is developing a system which is raising our nation’s skill levels. You are developing a system of quality against which employers can assess the skills of their people and individuals can judge their success in developing their talents.

    Wider choice. Personal motivation. Employer leadership and commitment. That is the basis of our approach. It is the best path to personal fulfilment and to more competitive enterprise. It is the path that will lead to high standards in education and training. And to success for our country in matching – and outclassing – our trade competitors in the years ahead.

    It is the right path. And I wish you well in developing it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 23 January 1992

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd January 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

    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.

     

    Honours

    Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Prime Minister if he has any proposals to review the present honours system; and if he will make a statement.

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

     

    EC Heads of State

    Mr. John Browne : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement as to the effect of the Maastricht agreement and the Single European Act upon the powers, role and future of the Crown and the heads of state of other European Community members.

    The Prime Minister : The powers, role and future of the Crown remain unaffected by the Single European Act and the treaty on European union agreed at Maastricht. The position of heads of state of other member states of the Community depends on their respective constitutional arrangements.

     

    Farmland

    Dr. David Clark : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any specific plans to reduce the protection to farmland currently in operation through the planning system; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : New planning policy guidance was set out on 22 January at columns 203-4 in a reply from my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). This affirms the Government’s commitment to protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land. Planning authorities should also weigh environmental considerations, including any special designation of the area, and economic factors, including the need for diversification to provide wider employment opportunities in rural areas, in preparing development plans and deciding planning applications.

     

    Legislation (Repeal)

    Mr. Tebbit : To ask the Prime Minister under which sections of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Maastricht agreement, the powers of Parliament to repeal legislation enacted by its predecessors are curtailed.

    The Prime Minister : The powers of Parliament to repeal legislation enacted by its predecessors are not curtailed by the treaty of Rome, either in its present form or as amended by the treaty on European union agreed at the Maastricht European Council.

  • PMQT – 23 January 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 23rd January 1992.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Harry Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Barnes : The Prime Minister has cut 110,000 training places in the past year. Furthermore, training schemes do not produce the skills or the qualifications for the jobs that are needed in Britain at this time. Is that because, as the Prime Minister said in another interview with Sue Lawley, from his point of view qualifications “are wholly useless”?

    The Prime Minister : Despite the unfavourable economic climate, both youth training and employment training continue to help young and unemployed people on a very substantial scale to go into further training and further education. Very large numbers of young people are being helped. We are investing enormous sums in training, in enterprise and in vocational education–two and a half times as much, after taking account of inflation, as was invested by the Labour party when it was last in government.

     

    Romford (Visit)

    Q2. Sir Michael Neubert : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to make an official visit to Romford.

    The Prime Minister : I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country, and very much hope to include Essex among them.

    Sir Michael Neubert : Will my right hon. Friend be assured that any time that he cares to come to Romford, Essex men and Essex women will throng the streets in their thousands? In the meantime, will he give my constituents an assurance that he welcomes the report of the three wise men on primary education, and that the Government fully subscribe to the importance of the three Rs? Will he confirm that it is our top priority to get back to the basics in education and to sweep away the leftist progressive teaching methods that, having been put to the test, have failed?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend couches his invitation to visit Essex in irresistible terms.

    The report that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State published yesterday is extremely important. It challenges some of the teaching methods that have been used in recent years and it suggests that schools should concentrate on commonsense, practical teaching. I believe that that is what parents want and that it is the best way to ensure that children are taught the essentials. We certainly hope that both schools and teachers will adopt the proposals in the report.

     

    Engagements

    Q3. Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Taylor : The Prime Minister will be well aware of the appalling environmental problems in the Fal estuary arising from the water pollution after the closure of the Wheal Jane mine. I do not think that people in Cornwall want to allocate blame at the moment, but they do want to ensure that the environmental clean-up is carried out both in the short term and the long term without hold-ups. Will the Prime Minister ensure that there are no financial problems at any stage in ensuring that the long-term and short-term clean-ups take place?

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we set up the National Rivers Authority specifically to respond in the first instance to the sort of pollution incidents to which he refers–this one is a very serious incident. The NRA has been closely monitoring the situation since the mine closed. It had developed contingency plans before the incident and put them into effect when water in the mine began to overflow. I am sure that the NRA considers that it will be able to deal with the problem with the resources that it has.

     

    Q4. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Coombs : Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports from the German chambers of commerce which show that German industry has invested £7.8 billion in this country in recent years? Does not that demonstrate that low taxation, low inflation and good industrial relations are the basis for strong investment, including inward investment; and does it not also show that the future of this country is excellent under this Government?

    The Prime Minister : I have seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I have also seen the important comments of the CBI, which set out the fact that Britain now attracts nearly half of all the inward investment from Japan that comes to the European Community. I believe that, by investing here, German and Japanese companies and those of other countries have shown their confidence in the British economy. It is a shame that some of the gloom and doom-mongers in this country do not share that confidence.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister confirm that under his Government the British economy is in its longest recession since the second world war?

    The Prime Minister : I will confirm to the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure that he will be pleased to hear what the European Community has to say, that the United Kingdom is the only country where signals of a sustained economic recovery are discernible, by contrast with a tendency towards gradual slackening of growth continuing in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal.

    Mr. Kinnock : Slightly closer to home, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British chambers of commerce today report that this is the seventh consecutive quarter in which the United Kingdom economy has suffered from recession, with levels of economic activity continuing to decline? Is not it clear that the recession caused by the Prime Minister’s policies is continuing because of the Prime Minister’s paralysis?

    The Prime Minister : The British chambers of commerce are clearly wrong about the seventh consecutive quarter. That would imply that the recession started in the second quarter of 1990, which it clearly did not, because output rose between the first and second quarters of 1990.

    I notice also that the president of the chambers of commerce said that British industry and commerce were on

    “an improving trend of slowly and steadily climbing out of the recession”.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will not the Prime Minister refer to the report and listen to the voices of business and commerce from all over the country when they say :

    “A worsening position on employment expectations,”–

    higher job losses–

    “and a major down-grading of business confidence, however, give no cause for comfort in this survey”?

    How can the Prime Minister be so complacent and so indolent when he is receiving advice that something now needs to be done?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening. I quoted from the president of that particular group of chambers of commerce. The report itself says :

    “an improving trend of slowly and steadily climbing out of the recession.”

    The right hon. Gentleman should look at other surveys and forecasters. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund both forecast recovery. What is equally clear among business men is that they have no enthusiasm whatever for a Labour Government. A survey of the top hundred British companies showed that 63 per cent. of them believed that recession would get worse under a Labour Government, and not one of them believed that it would get better.

    Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop : Will my right hon. Friend find time today to tell the House of the decision made yesterday to restore to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia the gold deposited for safe keeping in the Bank of England but misappropriated by the then Labour Government with the support in the Division Lobby of the leader and Chief Whip of the Liberal party at that time?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that when I met President Landsbergis yesterday I was able to indicate that we would be returning the gold. As the House well knows, the Labour Government in 1967 ordered the gold to be sold. The then Conservative Opposition roundly opposed that, and I am delighted that this Conservative Government have been able to correct that smear of dishonour.

     

    United Nations

    Q5. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.

    The Prime Minister : I shall chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on 31 January.

    Mr. Cryer : Will the Prime Minister confirm that 140 nations have signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, including Tory Canada? Why cannot this Tory Government honour their pledge under the treaty to get rid of nuclear weapons, which will mean the withdrawal of Polaris–which is literally cracking up–and the saving of £10 billion on Trident, to be spent on the national health service to care for lives instead of threatening them with mass murder? If nuclear non-proliferation- –

    Hon. Members : More, more.

    Mr. Speaker : Order. That is very unseemly.

    Mr. Cryer : Quite so, Mr. Speaker.

    If nuclear non-proliferation is good enough for the rest of the world, why is not it good enough for us?

    The Prime Minister : We seek to promote non-proliferation and disarmament, and that will be one of the matters to be discussed at the United Nations Security Council meeting that I shall chair next week. But I must say to the hon. Gentleman who suggests that it would be appropriate at present for this country to scrap its nuclear weapons and Trident that to do so would leave the country wholly defenceless. That may be the view of the hon. Gentleman. It may even be the view of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in their secret hearts. It is not the right policy for this country, it is not the policy of the Government and I hope that the Opposition will make clear how many of their members support that policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament rather than a policy of secure defences for this country.

    Mr. Bellingham : When my right hon. Friend visits the United Nations, will he raise the issue of the RAF aircrew who were shot down over the Gulf, some of whom came from west Norfolk? They were tortured, humiliated and abused in gross contravention of the Geneva convention. Is it time that the perpetrators of the crime were brought to justice?

    The Prime Minister : I strongly share the view expressed by my hon. Friend. I do not think that it is a matter for discussion at the special Security Council meeting next week ; it is certainly a matter which remains on our agenda.

     

    Engagements

    Q6. Mr. Douglas : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Douglas : The Prime Minister’s view of an expanded European Community, composed of many states in eastern Europe, together with existing members, is extremely attractive, but will he contrast that with the instability within the United Kingdom because the aspirations of a nationwide Scotland are frustrated by its being unable to secure its independence and membership of the Community? Will he take steps to have that issue ventilated in a multi-question referendum of the people, which could perhaps be held in harmony with the general election?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he had to say about the European Community. That is the right way forward for this country, the European Community and the wider Europe which I hope in due course will join the Community. The hon. Gentleman spoke about devolution. The Union has served Scotland and England well. In terms of a debate, he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has called for debates in the Scottish Grand Committee and I hope that everyone will contribute to them.

     

    Q7. Mr. Mans : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 January.

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

    Mr. Mans : Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to increase the top limit on national insurance contributions because of the plight in which that would place many of my constituents and people in neighbouring Blackpool who earn under £15,000 a year but during the holiday season earn more than £400 a week?

    The Prime Minister : I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will need no such encouragement. The policy suggested by my hon. Friend would hit many people on modest incomes who have bonus or overtime earnings and who occasionally earn above £390 a week. Such an impost would be quite contrary to the policies of the Government and the Conservative party and we shall not introduce any such policy.