Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the ‘Your Business Matters’ National Conference – 11 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the ‘Your Business Matters’ Conference, held at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London on Monday 11th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Last year I set out my aim to make Britain the unrivalled Enterprise Centre of Europe: to do that we need an efficient economy, a de-regulated economy, the lowest possible corporate and personal tax regime, minimum burdens on employers and an array of supply side measures to boost enterprise and competitiveness.

    That challenge is for our whole economy. It can’t be met without a successful small business sector, which is why we set up this consultation exercise, the first fruits of which we can announce today.

    Small businesses are not some minority interest – they are the backbone of our economy and the main source of future jobs.

    They are central to the enterprise culture.

    I was brought up in a family whose livelihood depended on a small business. I know the passion and hope and commitment that goes into them; the uncertainty and risks that come with them. The courage and tenacity of the men and women who run businesses is a huge national asset. I want to see it receive support and reward. I do not want to see it loaded down with taxes or tied up in red tape.

    I was delighted that you chose as the title for the conferences “Your Business Matters”. Because that is literally true. Your businesses do matter. They matter to you, they matter to me, they matter to your customers and employees, and they matter to this government. And they are crucial to the future well being of the United Kingdom.

    Some might think that is putting it too strongly. I don’t: and I’ll tell you why. We all have ambitions for ourselves and our families – security, opportunities, higher living standards, first class public services and so on. We can only achieve these if business succeeds. And business is most likely to thrive in the face of fiercer global competition than we have ever known before if we pursue policies that create wealth and encourage enterprise.

    We are involved in economic warfare. And to win that war government should remove unnecessary shackles from business. That doesn’t mean a complete “laissez faire” approach. Where Government can help, it should. These conferences have enabled business to say how we can help.

    Now we have heard. My commitment to you is that we will respond to your concerns point by point. I shall make a start today and more will come later.

    Twenty years ago, if you asked what bothered businessmen, you’d have had a predictable response.

    Wildcat strikes. Unemployment. Crippling taxes. Spiralling inflation. Today we’ve seen strikes fall to the lowest level since records began. We have the lowest main rate of corporation tax in Europe.

    Unemployment – though still too high – is far lower than most of our European competitors.

    We’ve seen the longest period of low inflation for fifty years. The lowest mortgage rates for a generation.

    We’re number one choice in Europe for foreign investment.

    And we’re exporting more per person than Japan and the United States.

    These are the foundations upon which we are turning Britain into the Enterprise Centre of Europe. We are getting the basics right.

    – Low inflation.

    – Low interest rates.

    – Low taxes.

    – Keeping Government off the backs of business.

    – Making it worthwhile to create jobs.

    Education driven by what parents demand and industry needs.

    Enterprise depends on Government to keep taxes down by controlling public spending. We are steadily reducing the burden of spending. At around 40% of national income, government spending takes going on for 10% less than the European average. Good, but not yet good enough. It must fall further.

    That may sound like some abstract point that only matters to the Treasury. But it’s not. For if we spent at the average rate of most of our European partners, we’d have to raise an extra £60 billion in taxes.

    Our policy is precisely the reverse. Ken Clarke and I have both made clear that we intend to get spending down lower still so we can cut taxes again, when it’s safe to do so. We intend to exploit our growing advantage.

    Capital gains tax and inheritance tax are high on our list. Because they are a huge disincentive to business growth and job creation. We cannot expect you to take risks, to put your homes, your savings and your futures on the line, only then to see a great slice disappear in tax when you pass the business on.

    In the last Budget, we took an important step in dealing with this. We took shares in private companies out of Inheritance Tax completely. Now Britain is one of the few countries where you can pass on your business without paying tax. But we want to go further. We want to cut capital gains and inheritance tax further, and, when possible, abolish them.

    But these are not the only taxes that you’re unhappy about. You’ve also sent us a very clear message about business rates – about their level, and how they are calculated.

    That’s a message we take very seriously. We’ll look very carefully at all the points you have made. It will take time, because of the complexity of the matter but if we are persuaded that there is a better way of doing things, or that the burden on small business can be reduced, whether in the short-term or the long term, then that’s what we will do. We said we’d listen, and we will.

    We’ll look at all the points you’ve made on tax. But there’s more to the tax problem than the size of the bill. What has come out of our consultations is frustration with the labyrinth of forms and rules businesses have to master for the taxman.

    Taken together, the combination of PAYE, National Insurance and VAT are the greatest administrative burden government imposes on business. To tackle this problem last year we instructed the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency to work together more closely. Today, the results are starting to come through.

    From next month new businesses will no longer have to register separately with the Inland Revenue, Contributions Agency and Customs and Excise. They will be able to sign up with all three in one go with one simple form. It comes with one leaflet telling small businesses all they need to know about tax, national insurance and VAT. We will shortly be starting a national programme for new employers to help them with PAYE and national insurance. Every new employer will be able to get free advice, on their own premises, before their first pay day.

    We intend to streamline the tax and national insurance systems in other ways as well. And to do it soon. More joint information. One audit visit, not two, to save you time. A single help-line to answer queries on both systems. And a fresh look at other ways of helping small businesses run their PAYE and NICs systems with minimum difficulty.

    These are bread and butter changes that will bring real benefits to small businesses. Simplification and deregulation are hard work. Their hallmark is painstaking pruning; cutting away what is not needed and cannot be justified.

    Let me make you this promise. Wherever we can, we will bin rules. Get rid of them. But there are areas where there is a legitimate public or business interest in having regulation – to protect the consumer, the environment, maintain fair competition, or whatever. In these circumstances wherever we can we will simplify .the rules and make them understandable. Written, I hope, in plain English!

    But in many cases, the problem isn’t only the rules: it is the way they are enforced. Business has consistently said that and I believe business is right. We intend to deal with this.

    In dealing with regulations, business deserves rights. Let me spell out for you what I believe they should be.

    First, businessmen have a right to expect that enforcement will be consistent and fair.

    Second, they should be told not just what they need to do, but why.

    Third, they should have reasonable notice.

    Fourth, a chance to challenge an inspector’s judgement and;

    Fifth, the right to appeal against it.

    I intend to make these rights a reality. We’ve already applied them to health and safety regulations – the great regulatory bugbear. Today I can tell you that, by June, we will apply them much more widely:

    to environmental standards,

    food safety,

    building regulations, and,

    a little later, consumer affairs.

    All these are areas business has complained about. I hope this action will make the system fairer and less burdensome.

    When I launched this programme of conferences at Downing Street I was very struck by a point one of the small business representatives made. He pointed out that small businessmen are expected to know all about every regulation that applies to them, they’re expected to abide by it, and they can often be guilty of a criminal offence if they don’t. But we don’t expect a single inspector or regulator to have that same encyclopaedic knowledge.

    Well, that seemed to me to be a pretty good point and I’ve looked at it carefully.

    Take the criminal sanctions point first. Obviously they have a role to play in some cases. But in others they are plainly inappropriate and we should find another way. We shall be looking at this further.

    But, as we do so, we’ve already decided that where a sanction is needed in future there will be a presumption that the least burdensome sanction will be applied -consistent with Community law – and civil sanctions will always be considered as an alternative.

    We’ve also looked at whether it would be practical to set up only one inspector for all regulations. We’ve concluded that the remit would be too wide, though it is a good ambition to aim towards as we reduce regulation. But I can announce some action now.

    I’ve already mentioned what the Inland Revenue and Contributions Agency are doing to offer a joint service. We’re going to carry this principle further in other areas.

    We shall start with planning and building regulations. You all know the story. You’re expanding; but you and your builder are frustrated beyond belief as you have to talk to the planning inspector one day, the building control officer the next, then you find the fire and health and safety officers want to know what’s going on. And heaven only help you if it’s a listed building!

    These control systems each have a proper role to play but working out what they mean for your business shouldn’t be a life’s work. It’s not what you went in business for.

    So we intend to pilot a single “one-stop shop”. This will bring together all the different enforcers, including fire safety, environmental standards, listing, planning and building control, and coordinated approvals for all local authority rules on planning and development. After gaining experience from this pilot, we plan to adopt this approach more widely. I believe that, pretty soon, we can make this whole process a great deal simpler.

    The time a small business most needs help with the regulatory maze is when it’s just starting up. It does nothing for morale or enterprise if your first few weeks is spent traipsing round libraries and making endless phone calls trying to find out what rules apply to you.

    During consultation businessmen have suggested making more use of computers and the Internet to provide more information about regulations. I agree. And we are developing exactly that. As Roger Freeman will be telling you later, we’ve developed the prototype of a computer based system to provide a single point of information about regulations and licences, designed particularly for start-up businesses. The prototype is on display here for the first time today, and over the next few months we plan to ask business what they think of it, and then take it forward.

    Every year the Government spends hundreds of millions on helping small businesses, through a huge number of different support schemes. You’ve told us these are too complex and I agree. So we intend to simplify them.

    So, to do this, I have set in train a radical review of all the government’s schemes to make them simpler and easier to understand. Work will begin immediately. It will be carried out speedily so that we can have early action. We will set out where we’ve got to in June, and then consult you fully on what we propose to do.

    We will also look at how these schemes are delivered and how we can improve communication. In your consultations you have told us to build on the network of TECs and Business Links. I agree – and that is what we shall do.

    Let me turn to the problem of late payment of bills. In our consultation the conferences were generally – not universally – against introducing a statutory right to interest. The DTI are examining all these responses. The problem is that many of the possible solutions cause as many difficulties as they solve. We have to make sure that what we do makes things better not worse.

    There are no easy answers to late payment. But that does not mean that there is nothing we can do. There is.

    I was very struck by the quotation in your conference report, quoting a businessman who said that “Rather than legislate, we should manage by embarrassment”.

    There is a lot to be said for that; peer pressure does work. So I believe we should take steps to generate embarrassment amongst those who wilfully and continually pay late.

    We intend to start by consulting again on whether companies should be required to publish their payment performance, as well as their policies. Personally, I think they should.

    The last time we looked at this issue, many businesses were in favour, but without agreement on how to achieve it. It may be difficult to design a perfect measure of payment performance. But the results of your conferences suggest that mandatory disclosure is something we should look at again, so we will. If consultation supports the idea we will implement it.

    But whether or not business collectively wants to go ahead with this requirement for itself, I am sure we should apply it to the public sector. It is simply not acceptable that the government should be a late payment culprit.

    We have done a lot to improve our payment performance. For example by the end of this month all Departments should have signed up to the CBI Prompt Payment Code. But I believe we can do better.

    So I intend to instruct all Departments to pay promptly and, to ensure they do, we will publish each year a league table of all Government Departments’ payment performance – not their aspirations, but the record of what they actually achieve, measured on a consistent and rigorous basis, and combine this with tough targets to ratchet up the weaker performers.

    I would like to do the same for local authorities, all too many of whom emerge from the conference reports as bad performers too. I have asked David Curry, as Local Government Minister, to pursue this urgently with local authorities and the Audit Commission. I hope they will agree to have league tables published on their performance. If not, we’ll consider requiring them to.

    Late payment is also a big issue for small firms in the construction industry. The construction contracts legislation, going through Parliament now, will tackle their problems head-on by banning the unacceptable practice of “pay when paid” contracts.

    Late payment leads me to enforcement of debts, about which the conferences also had plenty to say. It is clearly unacceptable if businesses feel they can’t enforce debts effectively even after a court has judged in their favour. We have to do something about this. The Lord Chancellor’s Department is currently conducting a review of civil enforcement agents, such as bailiffs and sheriffs. This will be reporting soon, and we will have some positive changes to announce.

    Later today, Ian Lang and Roger Freeman will have further announcements to make, all of them intended to tackle the concerns you have raised with us. There will be more changes to come later as we work with you to help small businesses prosper.

    Low taxes, and less bureaucracy to pay them.

    More tax changes to come when we can.

    Pruning back rules.

    Fairer enforcement.

    A one-stop approach to regulation wherever we can.

    Using new technology to help cut the paper-chase.

    A range of measures to help with late payment in both public and private sector.

    Mr. Chairman, I know it’s very easy to talk of enterprise, competition and the markets, but refuse to live up to it when it comes to hard-edged action. But the future of Britain’s business will not be secured by sound-bites. It will be secured by sound policies that help business win orders, take on more workers and invest.

    Many of the right policies do not win short term popularity.

    You can’t fight inflation without tough policies. Words won’t do.

    You can’t get spending down if you get out your chequebook every time a special interest group comes knocking on your door.

    You won’t get taxes down if you attack successful businessmen.

    You can’t get more people in work if you load more and more regulations on [remaining section missing].

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 March 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Plutonium

    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to take up the recent suggestion by the United States Government regarding the declassification of hitherto secret data on plutonium to encourage other nations with military plutonium stocks to declassify and release similar data.

    The Prime Minister: It has been the practice of successive Governments not to reveal details of the United Kingdom’s stocks of fissile materials held for defence purposes.

     

    Hong Kong (Visit)

    Mr. Parry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Hong Kong.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) on 7 March, Official Report, columns 315-16.

     

    Royal Residences

    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those members of the royal family living in accommodation a contribution to the upkeep of which is made from public funds.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 13 February, Official Report, column 547.

     

    Weapons Licensing

    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make the Ministry of Defence the licensing authority in respect of weapons and goods licensable under the military list.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February, Official Report, columns 589-604. The Department of Trade and Industry is to undertake a review of the current export control powers and procedures, following which a consultation paper will be produced.

     

    Special Advisers

    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a list of Ministers who have requested prior assent from the Prime Minister, under “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”, paragraph 75, for payment from public funds to meet the expenses of special advisers whose salary is not met from public funds accompanying Ministers on overseas visits; and if he will indicate which requests were granted and which were refused for each year since 1990.

    The Prime Minister: None.

     

    Deregulation

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of European Community legislation has been simplified or repealed in the past year, as referred to in his oral answer of 12 April 1994, Official Report, column 18.

    The Prime Minister: The answer that I gave on 12 April 1994 refers to the Commission estimate of the reduction in the volume of EC legislation arising from recommendations in the report on subsidiarity which was presented to the European Council meeting in Brussels in December 1993. In its “Better Law Making” report to the Madrid European Council in December 1995, the Commission reported on progress in implementing the Brussels programme. A copy of the report is in the Library of the House. Although the number of new Commission legislative proposals continues to decline, down from 48 in 1993 to a forecast of 19 in the 1996 work programme, the Government want the Commission to do more. I therefore welcome the remit given to the Commission by the Madrid European Council to bring forward further proposals to repeal and simplify both existing and proposed legislation.

     

    Ex-service Men and Women

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of interdepartmental co-operation in relation to ex-service affairs; and if he will meet the chairman of the Royal British Legion to discuss his views on this matter.

    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so. My noble Friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has regular meetings with ex-services organisations, including the Royal British Legion. In addition, my noble Friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Henley met the Royal British Legion on 23 November 1994 to discuss the provision of Government services to ex-service men and women.

    The Government’s continuing commitment is to ensure that all Departments provide an effective service for every citizen.

     

    Biodiversity Steering Group

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister which Departments are involved in the cross-sectional steering group on the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan; and what assistance they are giving the Department of the Environment.

    The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom biodiversity steering group included officials from the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Forestry Commission.

    The steering group published its report containing advice on the Government on 13 December 1995. Departments throughout Whitehall, including those involved in the steering group, are assisting the Department of the Environment in preparing the Government’s response to the report. We expect to publish this in the spring of 1996.

     

    Welsh Office (Permanent Secretary)

    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to announce the appointment of the new permanent secretary of the Welsh Office.

    The Prime Minister: The next permanent secretary of the Welsh Office will be selected following an open competition and the appointment will then be announced in the normal way.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 7 March 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

    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.

     

    Far East (Visit)

    Mr. John Townend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the far east.

    The Prime Minister: I attended the inaugural Asia-Europe summit meeting in Bangkok on 29 February to 2 March together with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This summit, for the first time, brought together the leaders of Thailand, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, China, the 15 member states of the European Union and the President of the European Commission. I warmly welcomed the opportunity it offered to reinforce the relations between Europe and East Asia, politically and economically two of the world’s three most important regions.

    The informal discussions covered a wide range of political and economic issues. The participants agreed on the need to deepen the political dialogue between Asia and Europe, to increase co-operation over arms control, human resource development, environmental protection and the fight against poverty, drugs terrorism and other international crime.

    On economic matters, there was common ground over the benefits of strengthening trade and investment flows between Asia and Europe in both direction. The meeting agreed to work for the further liberalisation of trade and for the success of the World Trade Organisation. It also recognised that intensified exchanges of science and technology, especially in sectors such as agriculture, information and technology, energy and transport, were important for extending the economic links between the two regions. Finally, there was agreement on the value of closer people-to-people contacts, especially among younger generations.

    The meeting set in hand an ambitious programme of follow-up work, including preparations for the first ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Singapore in December, work on improving conditions for the flow of investment between the two regions, the establishment of a business forum and promotion of reform of the United Nations including the EU initiative on financial reform.

    The meeting accepted the United Kingdom’s offer to host the second summit which will be held during our presidency of the EU in the first half of 1998. This is a clear signal of our commitment to developing relations with Asia and our determination to play a leading role in the evolving relationship between the two regions. Hong Kong During my visit to Hong Kong between 2 and 4 March, I had the opportunity to hear the concerns of a wide range of the Hong Kong community about their future. I was able to reassure them that:

    (i) Britain has a long-term commitment to Hong Kong which will last well beyond the transfer of sovereignty on 1 July 1997;

    (ii) in the event of a breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, we would pursue every avenue open to us and mobilise the international community;

    (iii) holders of the Hong Kong special administrative region passport would not be required to obtain visas for visits to Britain after 30 June 1997;

    (iv) we would guarantee admission to Britain for any member of the non-Chinese ethnic minority community with solely British nationality who came under pressure to leave Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty; and

    (v) we would support a private Member’s Bill to grant British citizenship to the wives and widows of the ex-service men from Hong Kong who fought for Britain in the war.

    I also had the opportunity to visit several parts of the territory, including the new airport and the extension to the convention and exhibition centre, where development is being pursued to ensure Hong Kong’s continuing success. Korea is an important trading partner: our exports increased by 44 per cent. in 1995 to more than £1.5 billion, and we have attracted more than 40 per cent. of all Korean inward investment in Europe. The prospects for further growth in these areas are good.

    I had a meeting with President Kim Young Sam, our third in 12 months, at which we discussed ways to increase the co-operation between our countries, particularly in trade and investment. I also met the leaders of the major Korean conglomerates. I encouraged them to consider further inward investment here by assuring them of the major benefits of doing so. During my visit, three new Korean investments worth £2.5 million were announced, bringing the number of Korean companies in the UK to 19. Four contracts were signed by British companies for joint ventures valued at £90 million, including a co-operation agreement between British

    Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and Hanjung for the building of spent fuel storage casks in a market expected to grow from £35 million to £2 billion.

     

    Princess of Wales

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions or communications Her Majesty’s Government have had since the beginning of the current year with the Governments of those other Commonwealth countries whose Head of State is Her Majesty the Queen, about the constitutional future and status of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: None.

     

    Duchy of Cornwall (Profits)

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if the income and profits of the Duchy of Cornwall are private and personal to the Prince of Wales.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The capital assets of the Duchy of Cornwall are inalienable, and the income from capital disposals must be reinvested in new capital assets. The Prince of Wales is personally entitled to the net income from the revenue account of the Duchy of Cornwall, from which he meets both public and private expenditure for himself, the Princess and their family.

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister at what time or stage on 28 February he was advised that Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales was issuing a statement announcing her intention to divorce His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I was informed of the statement after it was issued.

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what provisions exist for the Princess of Wales to renounce the rank and the title of Her Royal Highness.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The use of the style lies ultimately in the Queen’s gift, although the wishes of the princess would be taken into consideration.

    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister what future funding arrangements from public funds are being made to facilitate HRH the Princess of Wales continuing her public duties subsequent to divorce.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: Matters relating to the divorce of the Prince and Princess of Wales and the princess’s future role are under discussion.

     

    Civil Servants (Conduct)

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if it is his policy that civil servants criticised in the Scott report shall be disciplined.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 6 March 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 6 March, Official Report, column 252.

     

    EU Directives

    Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the EU directives which have been gold plated when transcribed into United Kingdom law in the past five years.

    The Prime Minister: The Government’s policy is not to add unnecessary burdens on business when implementing EC directives in the UK. Departments keep existing legislation under review in the light of this policy.

     

    “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”

    Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to issue a revised version of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I will revise and reissue “Questions of Procedure for Ministers” as and when appropriate.

     

    Civil Servants (Company Directors)

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister which serving civil servants in his Department are presently directors of companies; and if he will indicate for each (a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 1 March 1996]: For these purposes, my office forms part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 6 March, Official Report, columns 250-51.

  • PMQT – 7 March 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 7th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Stephen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

    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. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a person who has committed a serious violent or sexual crime on two or more occasions must never be allowed to do it again? Does he accept that that is the overwhelming view of all our constituents, who are sick and tired of dangerous criminals being let out, to offend again and again, by out-of-touch judges, some of whom sit in the Court of Appeal?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point forcefully. Our aim is to protect the public from dangerous and persistent criminals. We are concerned to ensure that, for example, repeat rapists are not released from prison if they remain a danger. At present, that can happen, and it is a matter of concern to the public. On those grounds, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is right to proceed with his proposals.

    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity categorically to deny the lunchtime news reports that the Government are considering taking away all employment rights from millions of people who are employed by small businesses?

    The Prime Minister: We shall have some things to say on Monday about small businesses, but they will certainly not include what was the reported on the news at lunchtime.

    Mr. Blair: Can we–[Interruption] The proposal, as people will know, was made by the Deputy Prime Minister. Can we take it from the Prime Minister’s answer, which I thought was clear, that that proposal is gone, and dead and buried?

    The Prime Minister: I thought that I made the point clear to the right hon. Gentleman a moment or so ago. We shall be announcing a number of very attractive policies on Monday, but I have to tell him that that is not one of them.

    Mr. Blair: I congratulate the Prime Minister. The proposal was made two days ago, and now it has been dropped. We welcome that. Since we already have the President of the Board of Trade’s letter referring to the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter, can the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter be published so that we can see what other proposals have been made and whether they, too, are to be denied?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will see the proposals clearly because we shall announce them on Monday. They will be very attractive. I think that small businesses will welcome them. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that small firms create the vast majority of new jobs. They have done so for years past and they will do so in future. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am glad to hear that I carry Opposition Members with me.

    There can be no employment rights if there is no employment. We are seeking to maintain a fair balance between the rights of employees and the burdens on employers. We are therefore proposing to reduce or remove unnecessary burdens. [Hon. Members: “Ah.”] I am interested that Opposition Members would like to keep unnecessary burdens. No wonder that in every socialist Government throughout Europe, unemployment increases.

    Opposition Members would like to retain unnecessary burdens. I would like to get rid of unnecessary burdens, and I would welcome some support for that from the Labour party. Clearly, there is no support for that from the Labour party; burdens it likes and burdens it would wish to have.

    Sir Marcus Fox: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the opting out of a single currency is of supreme importance to the country? Would it not be damaging–

    Hon. Members: Reading.

    Madam Speaker: Order. Sir Marcus.

    Sir Marcus Fox: Would it not be damaging if other countries ignored this criterion? May I suggest with hope to my right hon. Friend that the issue of a single currency, if introduced, would be one on which we should hold a referendum?

    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear to the House on previous occasions that I believe that a referendum on joining a single currency could be a necessary step. My position has not changed. I still believe that it might be the right course. At present, the Government are considering the circumstances in which a referendum might or might not be appropriate. We shall tell the House of our conclusions as soon as we have reached them.

    Mr. Ashdown: In view of the Prime Minister’s rather different answer to the last question of the Leader of the Opposition, does he agree that we shall never build or strengthen the small business sector by encouraging employers to adopt a hire-and-fire mentality and treating employees as scrapheap labour?

    The Prime Minister: No one is seeking to do that. The right hon. Gentleman should know better than that. We are encouraging a hire mentality. That is why unemployment has fallen while it is rising in other countries. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman–[Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order.

    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what would create a fire mentality among small and large employers–the sort of burdens that would accumulate under the social chapter, which the right hon. Gentleman would like. Included would be the burdens that would be accumulated under a minimum wage policy, which, again, the right hon. Gentleman would like. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he has a policy change to make, we shall be pleased to hear it. Labour’s plans for a minimum wage could destroy thousands upon thousands of jobs, as would the social chapter, and both policies are supported by the right hon. Gentleman. The Government are creating jobs, and the Opposition parties’ policies would destroy them.

    Mr. Barry Porter: In view of the depressing statement by the Provisional IRA yesterday, where do we go from here?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the proposals that I set out the other day were perfectly clear. Sinn Fein has the opportunity, provided that there is a ceasefire and that it meets the other criteria, of joining in the democratic debate. If it fails to take that option, the debate will not stop. The debate will continue with the constitutional parties. I believe that that is the right way in which to proceed. Were we not to proceed with just the constitutional parties, we would have permitted the IRA to stop the constitutional process. I am not prepared to do that and neither, in my judgement, is any of the constitutional parties.

     

    Q2. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mrs. Campbell: Is it fair that Camelot is now able to pay out less than £10 to a player with three correct numbers? Bookmakers have to meet their obligations, so why should not the lottery operators do the same out of their obscene profits?

    The Prime Minister: The operators have to meet their obligations. The chances of someone winning the jackpot are much greater than the chances of not being paid £10 for three numbers, as Oflot itself set out this morning. The hon. Lady should know that it was Parliament that decided that the lottery should be administered by an independent regulator. The hon. Lady’s party was very keen that that should be the case. The hon. Lady shakes her head. I think that I recall that the Opposition voted that it should be dealt with by an independent regulator. It is for the director general of Oflot to consider how to protect players’ interests. That is what he has done. She should direct her question to him.

    Mr. Lamont: In the run-up to the intergovernmental conference, would the Prime Minister like to congratulate the European Commission on the success of its “Interfere in Britain” week? Should the first prize go to the European Court of Justice for its ruling on fishing or to the attack on the brand of Cheddar cheese, or should the golden fleece go to the European Commission’s astonishing dawn raid on the Football Association’s headquarters? Does the Prime Minister agree that there was never a truer word spoken by the European spokesman yesterday than when he said:

    “We are talking millions of footballs”?

    The Prime Minister: I must say to my right hon. Friend that I did not see that remark. I am rather sorry that I did not. I shall have the opportunity of discussing those matters with the President of the Commission later on this afternoon.

     

    Q3. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Gunnell: Has the Prime Minister seen the published explanation of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for his reluctant vote with the Government on the Scott report, in which he says that he voted because the Prime Minister personally told him that the Ulster Unionists had held a gun to his head and that losing the vote would damage the peace process? Is that true, and, if so, does it square with the Prime Minister’s pledge to keep the peace process in Northern Ireland completely separate from intensely controversial issues here at Westminster?

    The Prime Minister: I made it clear from the outset that I shall deal with the peace process on its merits. I believe that that is the way that it should be dealt with–on its merits. That is the way it has been dealt with so far; that is way it will be dealt with in the future. I certainly have not seen any such newspaper reports.

    Mr. Renton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm, with regard to the important speech that he made in Hong Kong on Monday, which has given new confidence there in these last 500 days of colonial rule, that Britain has no current immigration problems with Hong Kong and that the 3 million people who already have visa-free access to this country abide by the rules? They come here as students, tourists or business men and they do not wish to settle here.

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm that to my right hon. Friend. In fact, in total, 1.2 billion people already have visa-free access to Britain. We have had no problems whatsoever with visa-free access from Hong Kong and I do not believe that there will be any in future. One of the principal reasons for taking this decision was to provide more assurance to people in Hong Kong, because I believe that such assurance will make it even more likely that they will remain there and continue to ensure that Hong Kong is a success in the future.

     

    Q4. Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Mr. Hall: Is the Prime Minister aware that he spoke for the whole nation when he endorsed Chris Patten as the next leader of the Tory party in opposition, because he acknowledged that there was nobody in his Cabinet with leadership potential?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had read what I actually said, he would know that that was not it. In fact I said:

    “There are a number of colleagues with outstanding ability”,

    and I am delighted that that is so. What upsets the hon. Gentleman is the fact that there is nobody with outstanding ability on the Opposition Benches.

     

    Q6. Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March.

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

    Sir John Hannam: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of his far east tour. Does he accept that it is far better for this country to secure future jobs for British workers than to keep up the continuous carping criticism expressed by the Opposition parties?

    The Prime Minister: What was most striking about the conference in Bangkok was the extent to which growth in the far eastern economies provides business and trading opportunities for this country. I think that many people throughout Europe have utterly failed to realise the sheer size and scale of the change that has taken place across Asia, and the opportunities that are provided as a result. During my visit, a number of business deals were struck between companies here and companies in the far east, and I very much hope that there will be more. Such deals provide jobs, security and prosperity for people in this country.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 6 March 1996

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 6th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scott Inquiry

    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the content of all briefings given by his press office on the subject of the Scott report since 15 February.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    This would be neither customary nor practicable.

     

    Hong Kong (Visit)

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out his programme during his recent visit to Hong Kong.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    It is not my right hon. Friend’s normal practice to do so.

    Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if all his engagements during his recent visit to Hong Kong related to public duty.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    Yes.

     

    Mobile Phones

    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Prime Minister (1) on how many occasions car based and mobile phones allocated to the use of his office have been cloned; to which officers these phones had been allocated; and when this cloning was discovered, in each of the last five years;

    (2) pursuant to his answer of 22 January, Official Report, column 45, to which officer in his personal office the phone cloned in 1994 was allocated; when it became apparent that this phone had been cloned; and what action has been taken by his office to improve the security of the mobile phone in the use of his office;

    (3) on how many occasions mobile phones allocated for the use of (a) himself and (b) his office have been cloned since his appointment.

    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend on 22 January, Official Report, column 45. I have nothing further to add.

     

    Arms Exports

    Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Prime Minister which Departments hold information relative to the financing by British banks, since 1980, using their customers’ balances, of arms supplied to Iraq and Iran; which British banks were involved; what proportion of such financing went on the supply of Valmara 69 anti-personnel land mines; and if he will make a statement.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 29 February 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

    Exports of lethal equipment including anti-personnel land mines from the United Kingdom to Iraq or Iran would require an export licence. No such licences have been issued since 1980. The financing by British banks of arms sales from other countries to Iraq and Iran would be a matter for Government Departments only if breaches of United Nations’ sanctions were involved. Government Departments hold no evidence of such breaches by British banks. If the right hon. Member has any information regarding possible breaches of United Kingdom export controls or United Nations’ sanctions, he should pass it to the relevant authorities.

     

    Public Appointments (Women)

    Ms Jowell: To ask the Prime Minister how many appointees to public offices in the list of public appointments were women for each year since 1990; and what proportion these represented of the total for each office.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

    Information about the annual number of women appointed to public office is not maintained centrally. However, it is known that in 1990 and 1991, women held 23 per cent. of the total number of appointments to public bodies. In October 1991, at the launch of Opportunity 2000, my right hon. Friend announced a Government initiative aimed at increasing this figure further. Good progress has been made and the percentage of such posts held by women, at 1 September 1995, is 30 per cent. The following table gives the figures for the intervening years:

    Year Total number of public appointments | Number held by women | Percentage

    – ———————————————————————————-

    1990 44,057 10,256 23

    1991 39,122 9,135 23

    1992 41,011 10,701 26

    1993 42,606 12,007 28

    1994 42,876 12,686 30

    1995 40,170 11,898 30

     

    European Courts

    Mr. David Porter: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages to the United Kingdom of membership of (a) the European Court of Justice and (b) the European Court of Human Rights; and by what mechanism the United Kingdom can withdraw from membership of each.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

    Accepting jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is an essential element of European Union membership, the advantages and disadvantages of which have been discussed many times in this House. The UK could withdraw from the jurisdiction of the ECJ only by withdrawing from the EU.

    Our policy in respect of the European convention on human rights was set out by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 13 December 1995, Official Report, column 647.

     

    Northern Ireland

    Mr. Stott: To ask the Prime Minister if his negotiations with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to determine the electoral process will include the Progressive Unionist party and the Ulster Democratic party.

    The Deputy Prime Minister [holding answer 5 March 1996]: I have been asked to reply.

    Letters of invitation to the round of intensive consultations with the parties were sent on 28 February and the leaders of the Progressive Unionist party and the Ulster Democratic party were among the recipients.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Bomb in Israel – 5 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the bomb in Tel Aviv, Israel, in a pool interview held on Tuesday 5th March 1996.


    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, a third and very serious bomb, you of course condemn it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is an evil act. What has been happening in Israel has been a determination to try and find a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. A huge amount of work has gone into that, a huge amount of goodwill. And now some evil acts are seeking to drive that whole process off course. This is the third such atrocity in the last few days and there is no conceivable way in which it can be explained, it is quite literally evil. We have had some experience of acts of sheer terror like this, acts simply to murder, to destroy and to make a political point. I think they are absolutely unforgivable and my heart goes out to the Israeli people.

    QUESTION:

    The real worry must be that such serious acts – suicide bombings like this – will cut off the peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think that is what they are intended to do. I think they are intended to break up any chance of a rapprochement between the Palestinians and the Israelis and it will be very difficult to keep the process in being. I very much hope, though clearly it will make life very difficult, I very much hope after a while it will be possible to continue.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Society of British Aerospace Companies – 5 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Society of British Aerospace Companies, held in Seoul on Tuesday 5th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    The British Ambassador has a very compelling way of encouraging you to speak to audiences, he just announces that you are about to do so. But happily on this occasion I have no inhibition about that, not least because although this is my first visit to Korea I found it an enormously entertaining and worthwhile day and I look forward to coming back again.

    I came here today essentially to follow-up the meeting that I had with President Kim Young-Sam in London just a year or so ago. When we met then, we identified the opportunity for a much enhanced trade and investment relationship between our two countries, and between Korea and the rest of the European Union, and we proposed some ways to expand that trade. We wanted to take stock of what we had agreed a year or so ago.

    We had of course met just a day or two earlier at the Europe-Asia summit where, amongst other things, it was agreed that Britain would host the next summit and the Republic of Korea would host the third summit.

    When the President and I met a year or so ago, we agreed that we should try and increase the economic relationship between our two countries. Since then British exports to Korea have increased by about 45 percent, and Korean exports to the United Kingdom by 61 percent, and our two-way trade has increased very dramatically.

    You can find the same sort of relationship in the interchange of investment, British in Korea and Korean in Britain. Indeed Britain now takes 40 percent of Korean investment across Europe, whilst Britain in turn is Asia’s largest single investor. So I think there is a very firm basis for our two countries on which to build.

    One of the changes that we are seeing around the world at the moment is I think an increased understanding across the world of the very remarkable changes that are happening in Asia, not least of course in Korea. The economic growth, the economic enthusiasm of what is happening in this part of the world is remarkable by any yardstick.

    I have no doubt that the growth of trade between Europe and Korea, between my country and Korea, are bound to increase. We have signed a whole series of agreements to directly cooperate in a number of sectors, and as a result of that that is bringing a lot of British trade missions here to Korea and vice versa.

    This reception marks the work of one of those trade missions – the Society of British Aerospace Companies. The aerospace industry is a key industry around the world, a key industry for Britain, and we are delighted to be working so closely with Korea as far as it is concerned. Certainly intensive cooperation is already under way. British and Korean companies are already working closely together on Korea Satellites, through the sales of Airbus aircraft, Rolls-Royce engines, Lynx helicopters, and I think that track record speaks for itself.

    I look forward to going back home on some future occasion in an airbus frame, a Rolls-Royce engine, with a Lynx helicopter in pursuit just in case I need it when stopping en route. Though if I do that I will have some explaining to do to British Airways.

    Let me just say that contacts between our countries of course are not just confined to business and governments. I think that contacts between the whole of Europe and the whole of Asia are becoming increasingly important.

    So, of course, are contacts between people. There has been a very rapid growth in the contacts between Europe as a whole, the United Kingdom specifically, and Korea over recent years. We have, for example, an increase of Korean students in the United Kingdom of 20 percent last year and 20 percent the year before. I am also told that the United Kingdom is the top destination in Europe for Korean tourists and that none of them come to watch our cricket team, which I personally find astonishing.

    We have, I think, complementary strengths – Europe, Britain, Korea. The partnership that may have seemed just a distant dream to many people a few years ago is becoming daily an increasing commercial, industrial, political and social reality. I am delighted that is the case, and delighted for the somewhat unexpected and impromptu opportunity that the British Ambassador has given me to say so. I am not sure what his next posting will be, but I will give it careful consideration. If he really behaves, I will leave him in Korea.

    Thank you for being here.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Seoul – 5 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Seoul on Tuesday 5th March 1996.


    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, a third and very serious bomb, you of course condemn it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is an evil act. What has been happening in Israel has been a determination to try and find a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. A huge amount of work has gone into that, a huge amount of goodwill. And now some evil acts are seeking to drive that whole process off course. This is the third such atrocity in the last few days and there is no conceivable way in which it can be explained, it is quite literally evil. We have had some experience of acts of sheer terror like this, acts simply to murder, to destroy and to make a political point. I think they are absolutely unforgivable and my heart goes out to the Israeli people.

    QUESTION:

    The real worry must be that such serious acts – suicide bombings like this – will cut off the peace process?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I think that is what they are intended to do. I think they are intended to break up any chance of a rapprochement between the Palestinians and the Israelis and it will be very difficult to keep the process in being. I very much hope, though clearly it will make life very difficult, I very much hope after a while it will be possible to continue.

  • Mr Major’s Address to the Federation of Korean Industry – 5 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Executive Board of the Federation of Korean Industry in Seoul on Tuesday 5th March 1996.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me first thank Chairman Chey for his very warm welcome and I am delighted to be here with you on this occasion. I would also like, at the outset, to pay my tribute to the Federation of Korean Industry for their work in promoting closer business ties with the United Kingdom.

    We have only a short time together today, so I want to concentrate on some of the things that I think are important to both of us and leave plenty of time for a more relaxed exchange around the table.

    We have seen a truly enormous increase in economic ties since the President’s visit to the United Kingdom last year. Exports to Korea are up by very nearly 50 percent; Korean exports to the United Kingdom are up by over 60 percent; and two-way trade has exceeded 5 billion US dollars for the first time.

    We have seen similarly exciting events on the investment front. In October last year Her Majesty The Queen opened the new Samsung electronics complex in North-East England; LG have opened a major new electronics plant; Daewoo have doubled the capacity of their video recorder plant in Northern Ireland; Halla will perform ground-breaking ceremony for a new factory in Wales just next week.

    Britain is one of the great overseas investors of history, and so we understand the logic of overseas investors, our investments abroad, and investments from abroad into the United Kingdom. Our industry is very ready to globalise its efforts and establish bases abroad. We are the world’s largest overseas investor after the United States, and of course the largest European investor in Asia, Just within the last few minutes I have witnessed the signature of a GKN/Hanwha agreement for a 30 million dollars joint venture here in Korea.

    Let me say also how much we welcome the Korean investment we have had in the UK. We are always a welcome home for inward investment. We have received by far the largest share of world investment into the European Union and I very warmly welcome this. We had three further announcements today: Fine Electromechanics, Sung Kwang Electromechanics and Poong Geon – all setting up to supply existing Korean investment in the UK. In this particular occasion the existing Korean investment is that made by Samsung.

    These investments are going to take the number of Korean companies who have chosen the UK as a manufacturing base to 19.

    But that is what has happened already. What I would like to dwell upon for a few moments is what awaits Korean companies in the United Kingdom. Well firstly a very warm welcome from the government. We treat Korean companies which have set up in the United Kingdom as though they were British companies formed with indigenous British capital. The United Kingdom economy is now entering its fifth year of sound and stable economic growth. The economic fundamentals are in place to ensure an environment in which companies can flourish.

    Let me try and illustrate that for you. Manufacturing labour costs – critical to any investor – are much lower in the United Kingdom than in the United States, in Japan or in any of the other major European countries. And so are our non-labour costs far lower than those of our European competitors. Inflation is under firmer lock and key than we have known in the United Kingdom for getting on for half a century. It has been below 4 percent for over 3 years, it is now below 3 percent and continues to fall. Productivity in manufacturing industry since 1980 has increased more rapidly than in any other member of the OECD, and to take a European example, twice as rapidly as in Germany. And unemployment, too high at just under 8 percent, is still at its lowest rate since 1991 and very far below the average of other European nations. Our economic growth in the current year will be higher, for example, than Germany’s for the fourth successive year.

    I emphasise these points to try and indicate to you some of the fundamental changes that have taken place in the British economy. It has not happened suddenly, it has not happened overnight. Economic success takes time and commitment. And the core of what we believe in is our belief in free markets in the United Kingdom.

    Competition both at home and abroad sharpens incentives, it focuses business on what business does best, and that is creating wealth.

    We believe that deregulation, removing unnecessary government controls is central to competitiveness. We have sought out some of the unnecessary regulations which raise prices, destroy jobs, stifle innovation and end choice. We have identified over 1,000 of those regulations and half of them have already either been repealed or amended, and we are on our way to dealing with the other half.

    The key target of deregulation has been the labour market. The reforms we have undertaken in the last 16 years have created a flexible, an efficient and competitive labour force, as those of you in the United Kingdom will already know. Industrial disputes are very much a thing of the past. The number of days lost last year in the United Kingdom in industrial disputes fell to the lowest level we have known for over 100 years.

    One policy perhaps, above all, encapsulates our belief in free markets, and that is the policy of privatisation, pioneered in the United Kingdom and a policy upon which we now have more experience I think than any nation in the world. We have privatised, put back into private ownership, 48 major industries, transferring nearly a million people from the public to the private sector, increasing efficiency and improving services to the customer. And where we have led on privatisation, many people have followed right around the world.

    Loss-making monopolies have been transformed these days into world-class companies. Let me give you an illustration or two. British Airways is now the most profitable international airline in the world and I am delighted that from next month it will fly three times a week directly from Seoul to London. Following privatisation British Telecom has also been transformed. The number of lines has increased by 30 percent. Competition in the UK has led to the development of a domestic mobile telephone market that is now twice that of any other European country. And the UK is the only European Union country with a competitive telecoms network and with costs the lowest in Europe.

    They are two examples. I could certainly have given you more. But the competitive cost base and open and deregulated business environment has meant that companies manufacturing in the UK – whether Korean owned or British owned – have been remarkably successful in winning export orders in Europe. And since one of the main objectives of most Korean companies investing in the UK is to be closer to their European customers as well as their British customers, it seems to me the case for coming to the UK is compelling.

    Let me touch on some of the other things that we have sought to provide because we believe that they are important for the future: an educated and highly motivated workforce; the City of London, perhaps, not perhaps, certainly, the world’s most flexible and sophisticated financial services market; competitive utilities with substantial cost benefits for industry; an increasingly highly developed science and technology base; a transport infrastructure that has global links; and of course English which, to our great good fortune, is becoming the language of international business.

    We British are irrevocably part of Europe. We have a very strong self-interest in seeing the European Union develop as a prosperous entity. The single market, crucial to companies dealing with Europe, was a UK priority, was a UK invention, was pushed through with UK political muscle.

    The benefits I think to business of that are increasingly clear – harmonised standards, quicker movement of goods with less frontier bureaucracy, the opening up of the financial services market and freeing public procurement from national restrictions so that governments could and should pick the most efficient company offering them services rather than simply pick a national leader in that particular area.

    These gains, which are in my judgement an essential element of enhanced competitiveness, are equally open to Korean companies investing in the UK.

    There is one area of very sharp difference between the United Kingdom and its other European partners. We have not accepted what is known as the European Union Social Chapter. And we have not accepted it because it would introduce new regulations and new restrictions into labour relations. It would make companies less efficient and that is not the right way to proceed. In the UK we are determined to maintain labour force flexibility, and our refusal to join the Social Chapter – a refusal which we shall maintain in the years ahead – provides significant competitive advantage over those countries that are burdening themselves with unnecessary costs that make them anti-competitive.

    The end result, what we are aiming for in the United Kingdom, is a full-scale, properly functioning, enterprise economy. I have made it clear that I want Britain to be the enterprise centre of Europe. Combined with the evident strengths of Korea’s economy and industry, I think that together we are able to increase the prosperity of both our peoples. I think there is much fertile ground for further trade and investment expansion and I look forward to continuing to work, whenever it is practicable and whenever it is possible, with Korean companies with European interests, and in particular with British interests. You would be very welcome, you would be very welcome in Europe, and I am delighted to have had this opportunity of speaking to you this afternoon.

    What I would like to do for the rest of the time is try and respond to any questions and thoughts that you may have, so that we might understand one another even better about the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead. Thank you for being here this afternoon.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Korean President – 5 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Korean President, Mr Kim Young-Sam, in Seoul on Tuesday 5th March 1996.


    MR KIM YOUNG-SAM:

    Along with all the people of the Republic of Korea, I whole-heartedly welcome Prime Minister John Major, who is honouring us with his first visit to our country. Prime Minister Major and I have sought to develop relations between Korea and the United Kingdom into a practical partnership by holding official talks no less than 3 times in the past year. I believe that Prime Minister Major’s current visit to our country will provide the catalyst for raising the level of our friendly cooperative relationship still higher.

    At today’s meeting we have exchanged constructive opinions on the situation on the Korean Peninsular, including developments in Northern Korea, and discussed ways to-strengthen practical bilateral cooperation. We have agreed that peace and stability on the Korean Peninsular are very important for the peace, not only for the Asia Pacific Region, but also of the world. We have also agreed that inter-Korean issues should be resolved through dialogue between South and North Korea themselves with the understanding and cooperation of the nations surrounding the Peninsular.

    Prime Minister Major has also assured us that the United Kingdom will consult closely with us, including the matter of British direct participation in the KEDO process and for the settlement of permanent peace on the Korean Peninsular. We have noted with satisfaction that the plans for industrial and technological cooperation, that we agreed upon when I visited Britain in March last year, are being carried out smoothly. We have agreed to further develop our bilateral relations through practical cooperation in the economic and trade sectors and active exchanges of personnel. In particular we have decided to further strengthen our friendly ties by holding those cultural events in each other’s country and expanding cultural exchanges in 1997, next year, which happens to be the 200th anniversary of the first contact between our two countries. We have also agreed to closely consult with each other in international arenas, including the United Nations where we are both members of the Security Council.

    In addition, we have decided that the United Kingdom and the Republic of Korea would also help each other in our common efforts to lead partnership between Asia and Europe as the host of the second and third Asia-Europe meeting respectively. We have agreed to establish a joint working committee between Korea and the UK to successfully prepare for this ASEM meeting.

    The Prime Minister and I agreed that cooperation between the UK and the Republic of Korea could become the driving force, not only for the development of both our countries, but also for the prosperity of the rest of the world in the 21st century.

    I am firmly convinced that Prime Minister Major’s visit has provided an important opportunity to strengthen our mutually complementary partnership and create a more mature relationship.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, thank you. Let me just say a few further words about our discussions this morning. This may be my first visit to the Republic of Korea, but I seem to be meeting a good friend, for we have met on a number of occasions in the last 12 months or so. This morning I have met the leaders of government, later on today I shall meet the leaders of industry.

    I will not reiterate all the points made by the President except to agree with what he had to say. But there are one or two things I think it would be useful to add. In recent years the cooperation in trade, in commerce and in politics between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Korea has grown dramatically. This is reflected most evidently in the eyes of most people by the degree of trade between Korea and the United Kingdom, and the degree of investment by the United Kingdom in Korea, and by Korea in the United Kingdom. The growth is impressive. Nearly a 60 percent increase in bilateral trade to over 5 billion dollars in the past year. There have been 8 announcements of new Korean investments in the United Kingdom, including 3 more to be announced later today. There has been a 27 percent increase in visitors between the two countries. The number of Korean students attending British universities has risen by over 20 percent in each of the last 2 years. And there has been tremendous progress under the industrial cooperation arrangement and in collaboration on science and technology matters.

    This is by no means an exhaustive list, This cooperation has extended to political and diplomatic matters as well. The President mentioned the ASEM summit, cooperation over KEDO and the United Nations, other examples could be given. I was very pleased to welcome the President to the United Kingdom last year and I am delighted to be able to visit Korea on this occasion.

    I would just end with one final thought. It is true that the relationship in all aspects has grown tremendously in the past few years, but it is the President’s belief, and it is my belief, that it will grow even more in the years that lie ahead. And our meeting today is a further staging post upon that improvement. And the President and I look forward to continuing our discussion over luncheon shortly.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to ask a question to Prime Minister John Major with regard to British policy towards North Korea. We understand that right now several British companies are making joint investment into North Korea, including in the banking sector, and that the North Korean side it seems is interested in entering into some economic relationship with Britain. I would like to know what is the current British government’s policy and prospects with regard towards North Korea? And the other question is on British support of Korea bidding for the 2000 World Cup. We all know that Britain is a strong country with a strong tradition in the football game and it would be very nice if Britain could lend support to our bidding effort and what is your own opinion?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me take the two points separately. On North Korea, I think the importance that we give to ensuring that the present government in North Korea behaves properly, was indicated very clearly by our support for KEDO. We were the first of the Europeans to provide positive cash support with KEDO to deal with the problems of the nuclear industry in the north. That was a matter of critical support to the Republic of Korea, we were the first of the Europeans to provide that support and have been encouraging our European partners to provide further support, and that has now been done at the communal expense of all the European countries. So we are very keen to ensure that North Korea is brought, as far as is practicable, into understanding that it must have a civilised relationship with the rest of the world, and in particular a civilised relationship with the Republic of Korea.

    On the second point, in lighter moments of my discussion with the President, and also with the Prime Minister earlier this morning, we speculated upon the possibility of a Korea/England World Cup Final. The only point of disagreement between us was who might win the World Cup Final. This is a further matter that may continue over luncheon. As to the site for the finals, as you will know, that decision has to be made by FIFA and the representatives of FIFA are independent in their decision. But we do understand very carefully how important this is for Korea and we wish you well, and we will continue to wish you well until the World Cup Final, if indeed the United Kingdom or any of its teams – England perhaps – were to be there against Korea. And I look forward to watching it.

     

    QUESTION AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Mike Brunson, ITN):

    Mr President, can you say why you think it is that your businessmen apparently prefer to invest in Britain rather than in say France or Germany or any other country in the rest of the European Union?

    MR KIM YOUNG-SAM:

    Well Korea has had this long relationship with Britain. As I mentioned, it has been about 200 years already since the first contact between the two countries. We Koreans do have a very favourable image of Britain, we have a very positive view of the country, so it is not a sudden relationship. The English-speaking environment is also a very favourable condition for Koreans to operate. And most importantly we do trust what the British side says through contracts and agreements and we have maintained an excellent partnership in all areas of our cooperation. On the government level there have been many Ministerial, Ambassadorial contacts and cooperation and the development of dialogue between our two countries has been excellent. From the business view-point, the domestic environment for investment in Britain is of course very favourable to Korean investors. So there is no question that the speed of the developing partnership between the two Koreas will increase in the future. We have already seen more than a 60 percent increase in the two-way trade between our two countries and the amount last year of the trade was more than 5 billion US dollars, more exactly 5.2 billion US dollars, last year. So we are very satisfied with the overall development between Korea and Britain.