The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1993

  • Mr Major’s Speech in London – 26 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech made in London on Monday 26th April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Chairman of Governors, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen. In welcoming you warmly to London may I firstly refer briefly to the events of Saturday. All too many of us present today have had experience of terrorism in one country or another. The world’s terrorists have one thing in common – failure. They have failed to attract widespread support, they have failed the rules of civilised life, they have failed to undermine democracy. On Saturday they murdered Mr Ed Henty. I know that I speak for everyone in expressing my deepest sympathy to his family.

    For years terrorists in the United Kingdom have tried to bomb and murder their way to a political objective. They have won no sympathy for their cause and nothing but contempt for their campaign. On Saturday they tried to maim the commerce of the City of London. They failed again. The EBRD, for one, illustrated that very clearly. Close to the explosion the staff of the bank worked on without interruption. You, the delegates, continued your meetings without interruption.

    This morning London has given its response. The markets are open in currencies and commodities, stocks and shares, insurance and shipping. In short, today in the City it is business as usual.

    Later this week I will meet the Lord Mayor of London to reconsider security measures. But even as we repair the damage the City will continue to operate as one of the great financial centres of the world.

    I want this morning to talk about an idea of Europe and an idea of partnership. When the Iron Curtain crashed down across the middle of Europe in the late-1940s it divided a continent that had been joined by the ties of history, culture, a religion, for over 1,000 years. Much of European history has been about the ebb and flow of that sense of European identity. Religious strife fractured the unity of Christendom. Emperors, military adventurers, ideologists and dictators made one attempt after another to impose a forced unity on the continent. The Stalinist attempt to create an empire of the Soviets from the Pacific to the Atlantic was no more than the latest in a long line of inevitable failures. I say inevitable because it is not possible to impose a crude uniformity on a continent whose traditions are as rich and as varied as ours.

    The collapse of communism in Europe is both a restoration and a revolution. It has restored national freedom to the countries of the former Soviet Bloc, it has restored individual freedom to the citizens of those countries and it has restored the possibility of partnership between East and West, between countries whose divisions have caused so much suffering over the centuries.

    But the end of the Cold War has imposed its own burden, the burden of choice and the burden of responsibility. The fate of the peoples of Eastern Europe, of Russia and of the countries of the former Soviet Union lies first of all in the hands of the people of those countries themselves. It is not surprising that many in those countries and many outside observers are daunted by the political, social and economic challenge that they face.

    For now they have to undergo a new revolution, not a revolution of barricades, of flags and slogans, not the exhilarating popular European revolutions of the 19th and 20th century which saw so much heroism among ordinary people and so much betrayal by their leaders, what Eastern Europe faces today is a new kind of revolution, a revolution in political attitudes, in methods of work, in economic and political institutions, in international relations. It is a revolution in which the old kinds of rhetoric and the old kinds of heroism are a positive disadvantage, a revolution without glamour.

    Such a revolution cannot take place quickly, it cannot take place easily. To bring it to success will require patience and tolerance, it will require tact and understanding both within the countries of Eastern Europe and from their partners in the West.

    But it is a prospect of hope as well as of apprehension. Look at the progress that has been made, even in countries with little experience in that most difficult of political arts – the art of democracy. Free and fair elections have become the norm, the norm in countries where 98.8 percent of the electorate once used to vote for a single candidate. Slovakia and the Czechlands have parted company peacefully and by agreement. President Yeltsin is the first Russian leader in the history of that immense country to be elected by popular suffrage. Russia voted again yesterday, so far we have only the early results, they suggest that the Russian people have renewed their support for President Yeltsin, for democracy and for reform. Those are the policies that have also attracted the strong support of the international community. As Russia moves towards reform she deserves our continuing support for her success is in the interests of us all.

    Mr Chairman, economic change everywhere is gathering strength. Poland is the first country in Eastern Europe to regain economic growth. In the Czechlands privatisation is proceeding apace. Foreign investment is flourishing in Hungary. Estonia has established its currency. Even in places where there is little or no tradition of private business ordinary people are beginning to take advantage of new opportunities. They are working for themselves and for their families. Small scale business and agriculture are spreading in Russia and elsewhere. Larger enterprises are being privatised. Industries which were run by bureaucrats are being handed over to the people who best know how to make them work.

    The grounds for hope, hope that the process of renewal and change can be brought to success are not trivial. The former communist countries of Europe enjoy solid assets, they are well educated, skilled in many of the scientific, industrial and technical skills which a modern industrial society requires. They are now well informed both about the problems of their own countries and about the possibilities of the outside world, they are free to meet foreigners, to travel abroad, to draw on the experiences of those in other countries who have benefited from the opportunities offered by a liberal, economic and political system.

    And above all, above all the people of the former communist countries of Europe can never again be seduced by the Marxist lie, by the proposition that the state is capable of imposing prosperity and that it is worth in exchange surrendering political freedom and the right to think for oneself.

    History could of course take a different path. Yugoslavia is an extreme and harrowing example, a country which was making good economic progress and appeared to the outside world to be shaking off ancient ethnic and religious rivals has dissolved into war and atavism. Much about the former Yugoslavia was unique to that country. I do not wish to suggest that I expect new, similar tragedies to break out elsewhere.

    But Yugoslavia is far from the only ethnic conflict bedevilling the post-communist world, Nogorno-Karabakh, for example, must not be overlooked. These are warnings that we must not allow human passion and despair to escape from our control.

    Those of us in Western Europe who have not suffered oppression, who have not suffered oppression and the artificial poverty which communism imposed on our fellows to the east, cannot assume the burden of choice and the burden of responsibility on their behalf. In the end it has to be the initiative of ordinary people and their common enterprises, freely entered into, which will bring the former communist countries of Europe through their present difficulties.

    But we in Western Europe have a clear and inescapable moral duty: to demonstrate in practice our solidarity with those who lived under communism, who had the courage to overthrow it and who are now paying the price of its political and economic deprivations.

    That is not simply a moral duty, it is a debt of gratitude to those heroic people in the East who fought for political change and who did so much to lift the terrible threat of a devastating war which hung over all of us and over our children.

    We in Western Europe bring to our support for our neighbours to the East many instruments, international institutions, governmental programmes, business collaboration and the generous efforts of individuals. My own government has contributed 1.8 billion pounds sterling through bilateral and multilateral programmes to help the former communist countries. Others have been equally generous and we are mobilising our collective institutions as well.

    The main collective institutions of Western Europe, like those of the former Soviet Bloc, were created in large part as a response to the threats of the Cold War. But unlike the institutions of the Soviet Bloc, they were freely entered into by their members. They have therefore survived the end of the Cold War and are beginning to adapt to the challenges of a world no longer conditioned by the old fears. The European Community is already strengthening its partnership with its neighbours to the East, it has generous technical assistance programmes in place. It and its member states together provide the lion’s share of Western aid. And beyond that the Community, the European Community, is very conscious of its moral and political vocation to support democracy throughout the continent. It looks forward to welcoming countries from the East as it once welcomed those from the south, as soon as those countries become capable of bearing the political and economic burdens, responsibilities and rights of membership of the Community.

    At Edinburgh last December, Community Heads of State and Government welcomed a far reaching report from the Commission on relations with our associate partners in central Europe. At Copenhagen we must take decisions. We need to tell the central Europeans clearly and unambiguously that we want them inside the European Union as full members. They may ask when I say to them it is up to you to make yourselves ready for membership, it is up to us to help you prepare for that membership.

    That is why the Europe or Association Agreements are so important. They have come in for plenty of criticism, not least, Mr President, from time to time, from you. But let us not belittle what has been achieved. The agreements have substantially liberalised trade. Trade between the European Community and the Visegrad countries has already increased by some 18 percent. But the process of liberalisation needs to go faster. Your cherished desire, and mine, Mr President, is to liberalise trade throughout the continent. I welcome unreservedly the European Community’s recent decision to set the goal of a free trade area with Russia. We must now work hard to put it in place.

    We all have problems in opening up our markets in certain sensitive areas. But I believe the Community should practise what it preaches. Trade liberalisation is the most effective and permanent means we have to help consolidate political stability and economic growth. After all, exports from Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia countries to the Community represent 50 percent of their total exports but only 2 percent of European Community imports. We cannot expect them to liberalise, moving towards market economies, if we do not lead by example.

    Indeed we can afford to be generous. As consumers we all benefit from our own generosity. If the Europe Agreements are implemented imaginatively, if we open our markets, then accession at an early date should be a realistic objective.

    NATO is another institution in transition. It no longer faces the threat to the East which was its main reason for being. Instead it is developing forms of cooperation with its former adversaries. Politicians from East and West meet in the North Atlantic Cooperation Council to discuss mutual problems of security. Russian Generals visit NATO military headquarters to talk about the problems of running down military establishments as the Cold War recedes into the past. There is even talk, so far highly preliminary talk, of the possibility of mounting joint peace-keeping operations in the disturbed parts of our common continent. It is all light years away from the terrifying confrontation of the past.

    And in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, whose annual meeting we are celebrating today, we are specifically devoted to the proposition that all Europeans and all those outside Europe who have an interest in the fate of the continent have a duty to combine in partnership to ensure that the post-communist revolution in Europe leads to prosperity and to democracy.

    The bank is still developing its activities, still learning from the experience of the two short years since it was set up. It has already contributed over 1.6 billion to western investment in Eastern Europe. It has already generated a total project value of 7.9 billion pounds sterling. That is a result for which the bank deserves credit. The bank must now go on about its task in the most cost-effective way possible, ensuring value for taxpayers’ money, of building up its operations in the region to assist the transition to market economies and to foster the private sector.

    I spoke a few moments ago of the importance of small business. The EBRD has just been asked by the Group of Seven Foreign and Finance Ministers, following their meeting in Tokyo, to establish a fund to promote small and medium size Russian enterprises. This was a key priority identified by the Russians. It provides the ideal chance for the bank to show its strength. In the end, however, it is not international institutions or governments alone which will bring the post-communist revolution to a peaceful, democratic and prosperous fruition. Politicians, officials and experts from outside drop briefly into the former communist capitals and dispense advice, often I believe without fully appreciating the immensity of the political and social, or even of the technical problems, which face advice, even when it is right and then risks being rejected.

    No, in the end, what matters is the human element, the sense that we Europeans are involved together as equals in a common undertaking. The truth is that the political and economic tasks which face the former communist countries of Europe are tasks of unprecedented difficulty. There are no simple, no easy, no rapid solutions and none of us has a monopoly of the right answers. Even if the prime responsibility for coping with the post-communist revolution must rest with the people most concerned, we all have a common interest in their success.

    That truth is understood by ordinary businessmen and ordinary people in both halves of our formerly divided continent. I am regularly amazed and moved by the number of professional people in my own country who are willing to make real sacrifices of their own time and money to help their fellow professionals in the East. I am struck by the number of Western businessmen who believe that they have a duty as well as an interest in seeking out viable joint projects with the businessmen who are emerging from the wreckage of communism. And. I know that their efforts are welcomed by their partners, by all those ordinary people in the East who are taking energetic advantage of their new freedoms to work effectively for themselves, for their families, for their communities and for their countries. For most of them – remember this – for most of them it is the first opportunity they have ever had to control their own fate.

    Let me conclude, Mr Chairman, with this thought. It is the task of all of us here today, politicians, bankers, officials, to provide the political framework and the financial backing which will help all those people to achieve their aims. For it is by the efforts of millions of ordinary people that we shall recreate the ancient oneness of Europe and lay finally to rest the demons which have caused, and still cause, so much suffering in our common continent. In that cause we should work, and work again, until we have success and they have prosperity.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Freight Transport Association Dinner – 26 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Freight Transport Association Dinner, given in London on Monday 26th April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Director General, My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen. I listened with very great interest to what the Director General had to say and I was struck at the outset by the difficult choice he had to make between a Ratners clock and the opportunity to speak at this dinner. I think I speak on behalf of everyone in saying that we are very glad he decided to come and speak to us.

    But I did feel a little uneasy when he mentioned the clock because it just so happens, to mark his retirement, I was going to bring with me a small token of our esteem – a clock. Fortunately I do not remember where it came from and I do not remember where I put it, but I now know it does not matter because the Director General does not like clocks anyway.

    Mr President, when I received an invitation, I was invited to come by Norman Fowler, Gary Purdy said he did not know what Norman Fowler said to me to persuade me to come. Well I must let you know he said nothing, he just gripped me warmly by the throat and refused to let go. But I now offer the Director General a word of warning, because he is sitting next to Norman. During the general election campaign which we had about, it seems, forty years ago, I spent a great deal of time with Norman Fowler and everywhere we went something curious happened, people turned up to throw eggs, at Norman. Now he is obviously used to this because he kept ducking and they missed him and they hit me. Well all I can say to you, Director General, you are in a very dangerous seat sitting where you are.

    Mr President, this is one of a series of speeches I am making about British industry but I am doing so because I believe British industry matters, that manufacturing matters, I spelt out why in Manchester last week. And services matter as well, they matter because they too create wealth and jobs and they matter because they are vital to manufacturing. The two are inextricably twinned.

    And transport of course is a very good example and freight transport is an integral part of the whole industrial process. And if I may say so, echoing to an extent what the Director General said, freight transport is something which we in this country, or perhaps more accurately I should say you, are world leaders at.

    And I will tell you why I believe we are so good, because freight transport in Britain is overwhelmingly private sector, is overwhelmingly deregulated and provided in an open competitive environment. Your Director General touched in his speech on the transport history of our country. I wonder, Mr President, if you realise that in the reign of Charles II the cost of transporting goods from London to Birmingham was 7.00 pounds a tonne and from London to Exeter 12.00 pounds a tonne. Now I am told it costs 7.50 pounds from London to Birmingham and 10.00 pounds a tonne from London to Exeter – not a great deal of difference until you remember that in the intervening three centuries inflation has risen by 4,800 percent. Mr President, I knew yours was a competitive industry and so did you, but I bet you did not know how competitive an industry it was. So I offer you, if I may, an advertising slogan – “No price increases for 300 years” – then I expect you to keep it for the next 300 years at the end of which, if you do, Norman Fowler will come here and you can all throw eggs at him.

    Of course there are other differences too. There were highwaymen in 1660, now there are VAT men, motorway maintenance men, speed limiters and tachographs. Mr President, we need an efficient and successful freight transport industry. My message tonight is that the government wishes to see your industry successful and, where we can, to help it be so. I do not mean by interfering and telling you how to do your job, I would not frankly, I could not do that. But the first way the government can help is by getting the economy right and then keeping the economy right. I know that times have not been easy for your industry, or indeed other industries in the last year or so. Those of you who move goods to and from other European countries such as Germany, France, Spain, will be well aware of the downturn now affecting them. Those who regarded the recession as a British phenomenon may now begin to re-think their prejudices about that particular point.

    But we are now seeing the pendulum in Britain swinging back, in welcome fashion, swinging back towards growth. Manufacturing output is up, exports are up, retail sales are up in March to the highest level ever recorded, car production and car sales are up, house sales are up and there is I believe the beginning of a new mood of confidence throughout British industry. But in just the last two days we have had two very important indications of recovery. Unemployment has fallen for the second month in succession, it is still too high but it is a very welcome sign. And today we have good news on the widest measure of prosperity of all – Britain’s output jumped upwards in the first three months of this year, the biggest increase for three years.

    Mr President, we said that low inflation would create the climate for recovery. We have driven inflation down and recovery is following, as we said it would. Both the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission now forecast that Britain will have the fastest growth of any major European Community country in the next two years.

    But perhaps even more important than that is the longer term perspective. We have the right conditions to sustain recovery. Inflation is low, under 2 percent, the lowest for around a quarter of a century. We mean to keep it down. Interest rates are down to 6 percent, the lowest for 15 years and, crucially important for competition, the lowest in the European Community. We have a competitive exchange rate. Manufacturing productivity is now improving at its fastest for six years and we have seen a record fall in wage costs. Mr President, we have not seen that combination of circumstances for 40 years and we must take the opportunities that exist there and not throw them away in the future.

    With Britain emerging from its difficulties and with the single market opening Europe to British firms, British industry has unparalleled opportunities before it today. Mr President, British industry must grasp those opportunities, that is why we have given priority both to manufacturing industry and to the services which support it. And that is why also, in a difficult time for public spending, as it must be if we are determined to keep inflation low, we have given such a high priority to the infrastructure programme. That is the second way I believe government can help.

    Good transport links are fundamental to a sound economy and over the next 3 years we will be spending a record 6.3 billion pounds on national roads, from the M25 to the A1 in North Yorkshire. Investment in British Rail has been running at the highest level since the early 1960s.

    But even more important, and you touched on this and I wish to say something about it, we are bringing private capital into areas that used to be public sector responsibilities. Let me make it absolutely clear, that is not a matter of ideology, it is not just a clever way of cutting public spending, it is our conviction, based on experience, that the private sector runs industries more efficiently and more profitably than the government can do even with the most efficient bureaucrats to help them.

    Just remember a few years ago! Twelve years ago, the taxpayer underwrote the cost of a new fleet of lorries for the National Freight Corporation, a new fleet of buses for the National Bus Company and a new fleet of aircraft for British Airways. The taxpayer also underwrote the cost of new port facilities at Southampton and Tilbury and new aircraft facilities at Heathrow and because the taxpayer underwrote the costs the Government had to approve every decision and those of you here who remember those days will no doubt remember something else as well – that uncomfortable feeling of bureaucracy breathing down your neck week after week, day after day and hour after hour.

    Today, how very old-fashioned all that seems. Both companies are now owned by the private sector; they are funded by the private sector; they provide efficient services for their customers; they now make profits for their shareholders not losses for the taxpayer and now we are bringing finance into the funding of roads and railways. Very innovative some say. Is it, I wonder?

    Don’t forget that many of Britain’s roads and most of its railways were built in the first place by private industries and financed by private investors. What we are doing is mobilising private finance again. Private finance has built the Channel Tunnel; private finance has built the Queen Elizabeth II bridge between Dartford and [inaudible]; private finance is building the second Severn Crossing; private finance is going to be largely responsible for building the Heathrow Express Line; private finance will have a huge role to play in building the Channel Tunnel rail link and cross-rail; and there will be more. Wherever possible, we will ensure that private firms provide all the finance and all the expertise and get the full financial returns and where risks and costs have to be shared, and in some cases they will have to be shared between the private sector and the Government – we will encourage joint ventures between the public and the private sectors. Mr. President, we are building on the developments of the 1980s and we are intended to keep innovation going in the 1990s.

    I noted Gary’s remarks tonight on inter-urban road charging and I have no doubt John MacGregor will spot them as well. John will be publishing a Green Paper on that shortly. I know you will want to study the options carefully and we will look forward to receiving your response and we will study that and take notice of that no less carefully but I want to turn for a moment to another matter you touched upon and that is the privatisation of British Rail.

    A great deal of nonsense has been talked about the privatisation of British Rail. I put the point bluntly for I feel it strongly. The privatisation is not ideology but plain common sense and national self-interest. It is common sense that the private sector will run the railways more efficiently and it is in our national self-interest that they should do so. The UK as a whole needs the best possible efficient, reliable railway service. Bringing in private-sector skills and liberalising access to the network are in my judgement the best ways to achieve that and an expanding economy will bring a growing market for freight transport in which there is undoubtedly a place for rail freight. I listened extremely carefully to what your Director-General had to say on that.

    Let me make it crystal clear we do want rail freight to be used to the full as a result of the improvements and competitiveness that privatisation of the railways will bring but we certainly do not intend to penalise road freight as the counterpoint of that policy.

    Mr. President, better infrastructure, road and rail, means a more productive, more efficient and therefore a more profitable freight industry as a whole and I am sure you will benefit to the full from the changes and the opportunities which private financing will bring.

    Mr. President, just a little over a year ago, I have to confess I did some of your members out of a valuable business opportunity. I didn’t call the removal men to 10 Downing Street! I am not this evening prepared to apologise for that but I do intend to make up for the lapse by fighting to win new opportunities for your members abroad, beginning with Europe.

    To those of you who don’t and haven’t yet lifted your eyes to the prospects of business that exists within the European Community, I say to you do so speedily for those prospects are real, they are growing and they are glittering prospects for the future for such an efficient industry as we have in this country. The opening of the Channel Tunnel and the opening of Europe’s Single Market are two significant events with huge implications for the freight industry.

    The Single Market has already opened up most Community transport markets to transport operators and we have now agreed programmes for opening-up air and coastal services with each member state. Road transport within each member state is next on the agenda; it has been partly liberalised and we shall continue to press for agreement on complete freedom of access as soon as possible.

    Mr. President, what do those new freedoms mean? They mean greater choice for transport users and greater opportunities for transport operators. They mean more competition within the Community and beyond and. I have not a shred of doubt that British freight operators will rise to that challenge and grasp that business but to enable them to do so, there is something we have to do. By “we”, I mean the Government. We have got to make sure those new freedoms really happen. We have won the right to offer new services, ferry services or road haulage for example. Governments must not be allowed to put obstacles in their way.

    Let me say this to you tonight, Mr. President: your Government will insist on your right to offer your services right the way through the European Community and the European Commission has important responsibilities to enforce these rights and I believe that they will meet them and we will certainly encourage them to do so.

    Mr. President, during Britain’s Presidency of the Community [section of speech not recorded] right conditions for you to get out there and succeed. The economy is set fair for steady growth with low inflation. Some £3 billion of capital expenditure on roads and rail alone in the current year with new opportunities for private sector investment; new freedoms in Europe for British companies to turn their competitive edge into new markets in road, rail, air and sea transport; and a radical review of deregulation to get Government off industry’s back.

    In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to pick out just one point from. your Director-General’s speech tonight. He urged this industry to be proud of its achievements. I would say simply this:

    So you should be! Competitiveness, safety, environmental standards, industrial performance have all improved dramatically in recent years. You do have an exemplary record. Be confident! Be proud of that record and don’t in any sense be afraid to take the remarkable opportunities that lie ahead of you in the 1990s. I have no doubt about your capacity to take those opportunities and turn them into profits for your companies in the future. Let me conclude by saying simply this: Mr. President, as you do so, you will have the Government’s full support. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Manchester – 23 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, made in Manchester on Friday 23rd April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My Lord Mayor, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen. I would like first, Gill, to thank you for your budget submissions, a little early perhaps but I will take very careful note of them. A curious fact, Gill, very curious, I noticed it particularly when you were speaking, but when I was in Wales they asked me for an airport like Manchester’s.

    Can I say, firstly, how delighted I am to be back here in Manchester. It is always a delight to escape from the hot house of Westminster and see what is happening in the real world, so it is a great pleasure to be back here today. Two hundred and fifty years ago, Daniel Defoe called Manchester “the greatest village in the country”. No longer true of course. Today Manchester is no longer a village but one of the great cities of Europe. And I say that this evening not as a politician’s wholesale civility but this is the city of wholesale English commerce, and you should be proud of it. This is Brindley and Crompton country where faster transport set an eight-fold increase in yarn and cloth production and together that did spark the industrial revolution and sold shirts to the world.

    But what over the years has made it from a village to a great city? I think the answer to that is quite clear. Because leading, and not following, Manchester has changed with the times. Today we all face a similar challenge, as Bob Dylan sang many years ago in my youth – the times they are a changing. They are certainly changing now, rapidly perhaps, more rapidly in this decade than any decade, even the most venerable amongst us can remember in their long life. In our interests, our cold self-interest, we must make sure in this country that we lead that change and lead it fast. Captive markets for our goods around the world no longer exist, the captive market these days is an inscription upon our headstone. And the Lordly assumption that somehow it is a privilege to buy from the British has passed into history.

    The world has changed. Japan and the countries of the Pacific Rim are giant manufacturing powers. China is set increasingly in the decades ahead to become a huge industrial power. That is the competition that we need to face in this country in the future. That is the competition, so let us not flinch, let us not fear, our job is quite simple and quite clear [inaudible] and train and prepare and export and beat that competition for our own domestic prosperity in the rest of the ’90s and in the new century.

    So we do not need to make the mistake, and dare not make the mistake, of falling for the alternative to complacency, that British gift for graceful despair. In this country we can compete brilliantly and we are now well placed to win in the world’s market places.

    Just contemplate, just step back for a moment from the painful necessities of the last two years and consider the position today and just listen, please, to the scores that Britain chalks up and that you do not hear often enough. we have inflation below 2 percent, better than most of the European Community and better than most of the G7. We have a highly competitive exchange rate. We have interest rates, the lowest in the European Community and the lowest for 15 years.

    We have not seen that combination of remarkable trading circumstances for nearly 40 years. And I believe that industry and commerce have recognised that reality better than many others. Manufacturing output is up, investment is up, productivity is rising fast, you have kept wage costs competitive and we have sought to do that in the public sector as well, doing better than Germany or Japan and better than at any time for a generation.

    And as the Chancellor said earlier this week, Britain is set for 2 years of solid growth, growth that will be the faster in the European Community big league. As we meet here this evening, after what I know have been difficult circumstances for some time, we have every reason to be confident about our future economic prospects.

    We said two years ago that low inflation would bring recovery. We have brought inflation down, recovery is now following, as we said that it would. Yesterday’s news that unemployment has fallen, fallen for the second month running, is very welcome news, welcome that it has fallen in every region, welcome for the 50,000 people that Britain has now put back to work this year. More businesses are beginning to take people on again and job vacancies are rising. All that can only add to confidence.

    That recovery will benefit every bit of Manchester’s increasingly broad-based economy, a diversified, a diversified and successful base that is well represented in the attendance here this evening. Your region’s service sector is vital to the nation as a whole. And as an employer your financial and business services alone provide work for nearly a quarter of a million people, indeed even more now that Mercury is bringing an extra 500 jobs.

    And Manchester is the student capital of Britain, leading the way in the sciences and technologies that we will need for tomorrow. Three universities, a world renowned business school, UMIST, you name it, you have got it here in Manchester.

    That is not just an investment for the future. Education is a key part of the service economy of today, a service economy that is also showing its paces abroad. The North-West Chambers show that service exports have sharply improved over the last quarter. Good, good, but if the recovery is to last and prosperity to grow, we have to win and continue to win right across the market place in the service sector and beyond the service sector. Because vital though services are to our prosperity, we cannot depend on services alone, we need a vibrant, thriving, manufacturing base and I hope every part of this country will recognise that for the future.

    So, Mr President, I hope our friends in the service sector this evening will forgive me if I turn from them to manufacturing because I want to say this evening a few words about the importance of manufacturing and just a bit about our export success. And where better than here, in Manchester, in this hotel where Mr Rolls met Mr Royce in 1904. We British have done something typically British and wholly remarkable, we have managed a fanfare without trumpets. We are exporting more now than at any time in our history. But in the export markets how do operate? We operate like Jeeves, we just shimmer silently, export discreetly, we do not tell anyone, it might give offence. Well I think we should tell people about our successes in taking export markets right the way across the world, it is about time the British beat the drum for British successes and let know what we are doing right.

    Ask people around the world – who are the great exporters? And they will speak with respect and admiration of Japan. That is right, they are a great exporting nation, the Japanese. But what about us? We British export 400 pounds per person per year more than the Japanese – 1,800 pounds for every man, woman and child, compared with 1,400 pounds for the Japanese.

    What are we to do with the Gordon Glooms who always say that British industry is crumbling? I think people should listen. In financial services, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, the water industry, power generation, areas of food processing, the drink industry, garments, aerospace, defence equipment, the oil and gas industry, mining equipment, bio-technology and international construction, we lead the pack in this country and we should continue to take that message right the way around the world.

    British companies are big companies, powerful companies, successful companies. British companies account for ten out of the top European twenty companies by profitability, and eleven out of the top twenty by size. And although the trade gap is wide, we are seriously engaging with the competition. We export televisions to Germany, lace to Brussels, cosmetics to the French, cars to Japan and with a brass neck that would have delighted Richard Arkwright, we now sell pizzas to Italy. One day will speak of Salford as the world’s centre of pizzas – Italians will never speak to me again.

    The balance of trade in the motor industry will be revolutionised over the next few years, in partnership of course, rightly in partnership joining and beating.

    But what of the future? Well I am a fairly tolerant soul. But I will tell you one thing I do not like, I do not like to see British manufacturers retreating from the field. The British car industry has turned retreat into triumph, other industries can do the same.

    And why is it that so many people seem to have such a low view of manufacturing? I think part of that view comes from the out-dated image of manufacturing as an employer of large numbers of unskilled people in sprawling plants doing heavy manual work, the ancient mythical world of the cloggit and thump brass hammerworks. That is not a low view of manufacturing, it is a total misunderstanding of modern day manufacturing. Reality, manufacturing reality, is more like the British Aerospace works I saw today, or the factory just 30 miles from Manchester I saw the last time I was here, a factory spinning optical fibres, modern expanding, sharp, the biggest producer outside America and selling right the way across the world.

    These are great symbols, but we want more than symbols, we want fast reader replication and we want it now in ever increasing numbers. And improving competitiveness is the key to expanding our manufacturing base. We know that when we have manufactured we can sell. As recovery picks up we must make sure there are more and more British goods for customers to buy of the quality and the price that they want to buy, available at the time that they want to buy it.

    There is, I have to say to you, a danger that nags in my mind time and time again, it is always there waiting. Time and time again since the war exports have gone up in recession but when the recovery came companies abandon the export drive for the warm debilitating huddle of the home market. Well that must not happen this time, in our own interests we must not permit that to happen again. We are determined to build up our export success and that is why in the Autumn Statement and the Budget the Chancellor increased export credits and cut its cost to business. You keep exporting and we will keep supporting and between us we will bring prosperity to this country.

    Success requires continuous effort, continuous improvement, we cannot let up. Manchester I think knows something of this: the fourth-generation mill-owners who bought shooting estates, lived in Surrey and wouldn’t replace old machinery; the soft and selfish gentlemen manufacturers – they very nearly destroyed Lancashire for you. Let us remember them in order not to be like them in future. “Change not decay” must be our creed.

    Let me make it clear beyond any doubt whatsoever that I believe the Government has a duty to work with industry to help industry to meet that challenge, not Whitehall picking winners. the winners picking themselves and Government helping them heart and soul.

    Everything we do has to be supportive of you. We want less of a tax burden on the profits that you need for investment. That is why we are pressing down on public expenditure; it is why we have to give priority within that spending to infrastructure projects which spell business. Manchester’s own Metrolink that Gill mentioned earlier is a very real example, so is the Channel rail link, so is the Forth Crossing in Edinburgh. That is why we are seeking to reform education. That is what tests in schools are all about, to find out what the children know and what the children don’t know because we need to know what they don’t know so that we can teach them what they should know. They deserve the best, they need the tests; you need the best working for you and the vital importance of our education system cannot be overstated. [Applause]. That is why we are doing more than ever before for good vocational training to give our youngsters the best possible start in the best possible jobs, a recipe for the best possible success for Britain. It is why science these days is a Cabinet job and why we are overhauling what we do on science and innovation to ensure Britain’s effort and brain power backs industrial success.

    It is why in the budget we have given extra help to Britain’s exporters; it is why we have cut businesses’ rate burden and cut Advance Corporation Tax to boost businesses’ cash flow by £2 billion a year and when we have winners we support them everywhere. I did it recently in India and the Gulf. British firms had done the work, Government helped unlock the contracts. £5 billion of orders and 20,000 jobs safeguarded for years to come.

    I saw the fruits of that partnership earlier today when I met the Gulf Tornado builders at British Aerospace. I and my colleagues will give that backing, so must each and every British embassy around the world. Graceful manners and an elegant understanding are surprisingly well-suited to the indispensable arts of trade. Let them by all means pour out the gin and tonics but then let them sell both bottles to the opposition [Applause].

    Winning back lost markets is the only long-term policy for British industry and for the whole economy and manufacturing is the soldier in the front line of that struggle.

    Mr. President, you touched delicately upon the point – a number of points as I recall but certainly this one: over recent months there has been a tiny frisson of controversy over our European policy. [Laughter]. Let me set out my position clearly.

    Commercial success starts on our own doorstep and our doorstep is Europe. When Europe walks, it walks in shoes exported from Manchester. The new rail terminus at Charles de Gaulle Airport is work done in Bolton. The cocktail chatter is that the Government is too obsessed with Maastricht when we should be concentrating on jobs. In what world are those cocktail chatterers living? Jobs and sales are what being in the heart of Europe is all about for our future. [Applause]

    What made possible the vast expansion in small and medium-sized businesses and new jobs in the 1980s? Where did they find their main export markets? Overwhelmingly in Europe. An example not far from here: a Leyland company went into Europe a few years back with one Chesterfield in the back of an estate car; in the Single Market it now does a million pounds of business.

    Have your reservations by all means. No-one says that Europe is perfect but that story tells why we are there. Since we joined, our exports to it have grown nearly 50 percent faster than have those of our own EFTA partners. That is almost £20 billion last year, twenty export billion poundsworth of jobs. No wonder the Scandinavians and the Austrians wish to join the Community! What an irony that a nation which sought trade when Tuscan merchants brought wool in the Cotswolds in 1370 should contemplate holding back from the richest free trade market of all time.

    I believe that the Chambers of Commerce understand the importance of Europe to Britain’s trading strategy and of the Maastricht process to that strategy. The President of your Association, Christopher Stewart-Smith, who is here this evening, wrote to me recently specifically to support what we are doing. Let me quote from his letter. He wrote as follows:

    “Those who suggest we have gone far enough with the Single European Act are making a mistake that British business cannot afford. Businesses do not want to see the clock turned back nor would they welcome the reintroduction of new non-tariff barriers. Britain needs the commitment to subsidiarity to avoid unnecessary interference in domestic issues.”

    That, Christopher, is it smack between the eyes, a bull’s-eye beyond a doubt! That is the message that business should give to doubters about our commitment to Europe. Maastricht opens the way to the sort of Community that we want to see. Taking that essential step away from centralisation, we gain the benefits of the Single Market without the drawbacks and at the end of the inky labyrinth of treaty subclauses is a trading Europe. Especially here in Manchester that is important to us, a trading Europe in which we can send our exports in the future.

    Yesterday in the House of Commons, we finished the Committee Stage of the Maastricht Bill. Let us now finish the Bill and get on with the job of building prosperity for Britain in Europe and put these squabbles behind us. [Applause].

    Mr. President, here this evening perhaps I will be permitted to say just a word about the Chambers of Commerce movement. It is already helping its members with Maastricht but I think it can do more. I would welcome a bigger billing for the Chambers. It can only help the businessmen to swap ideas and learn from each other. I would like in the future to see Government develop the same relationship with the Chambers that it has developed with the CBI. The one-stop initiative is a tangible sign and naturally Manchester has won the bid to be one of the pilots of this new and I believe utterly worthwhile initiative.

    Here in Manchester this evening there is perhaps one other issue that commands me like a referee’s whistle – the City’s bid for the Olympics. Manchester’s bid goes beyond pleasing discus fanciers. Building the Olympic facilities and hosting the Games should generate £4 billion of new spending in the region and make 11,000 jobs but better yet, it will be a shop window beyond dreams. The world would see what North-West England has to offer. Manchester is already eighth in the European league of best cities in which to locate a business but it can move up. I know and everyone here knows – and Gill mentioned it to me earlier – that Manchester has ambitions to be top of the league so the Government is shouting and finessing for Manchester’s bid. We have put up £75 million for the bid and for the initial construction programme. That starts with the Olympic arena and the National Cycling Centre. We are providing some £40 million funding towards the regeneration of East Manchester this year and we are backing Manchester’s bid by ensuring that all the necessary facilities can be built. A state-of-the-art Olympics for the start of the new millennium. Where better than here in Britain and here in Manchester? [Applause]

    I am honoured to play my part together with Craig Readie of the BOA and Bob Scott who I must tell you though I think you already know it have done wonderful things for Manchester’s bid in the last year or so. [Applause]. When Bob comes up and grabs me warmly by the throat [Laughter], I have this instinct of what he is going to say to me and that instinct has never been wrong! Together with Craig Readie and Bob Scott, I pressed the case to the President of the IOC just a couple of weeks ago. No-one can be sure what lies in the minds of the members of the IOC when they vote to decide the location but because of what has already been done Manchester is now one of three hot favourites. Beijing and Sydney will make their pitch but nothing that can be done for Manchester will be left undone in the quest to bring the Olympics here at the start of the new millennium. [Applause].

    This bid and the great works that accompany it are just one sign that Manchester has kept all its flair. Much of the rest of the world may still be going into recession; we are coming out of the recession and we have the edge – low inflation, rising competitiveness. We need the Manchester touch for the great things which are pending. It was Manchester which took raw cotton from Smyrna, sold it to the fast bobbin men in Oldham and the power loom men in Preston. Then it sold cheap cotton cloth to the world. Manchester knew what needed be done then; it knows what must be done now. So does the Government. Together I hope. Perhaps in Manchester I shouldn’t say “together” but “united” [Applause] and to be strictly fair let me put it a slight different way: in this city [Applause] united we can do it. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Speech to Conservative Group for Europe – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Conservative Group for Europe on 22nd April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Two years ago I said I wanted to put Britain at the heart of Europe. And the heart of Europe is where I still want us to be.

    It is now 20 years since we joined the European Community.

    Since then, a whole generation has grown up. A generation free of the legacy of the old animosities. A generation which takes for granted co-operation between the Member States.

    Yet in 1973 all you would take to the Continent was a limited amount of foreign currency and £25 sterling. Today, we go to France much as we might go to Yorkshire. Last year we made a trifling 24 million trips to Europe.

    It is no longer an oddity for British students to spend a year in France or to see a German student rowing in the boat-race for Cambridge. For the manager or the professional it is becoming as normal for a career to include two years in Mannheim as a posting to Manchester. Little England steps out. But as we have been stepping out for more than 20 years now we hardly notice that we do it.

    Economic benefits

    There is also the minor question of profit. We British are traders. Our trade with the rest of the Community has risen thirteen-fold. In 1973 we exported £800 million to Germany. Now it is over £15,000 million. We export as much to Germany as to the United States and Japan combined. That is the scale of our European self interest. Since we joined, our exports to our partners in the Community have grown 50% faster than have those of our old partners in EFTA. That amounts to £20 billion last year. That’s a lot of prosperity and a lot of jobs.

    Britain has looked at the world, understood that it must be competitive … and competes.

    And the fact that we do compete makes inward investors flock here. Two out of every five who come to the Community come to Britain. Now we export cars to Japan, television sets to Germany and computers to the world. We hear a great deal about the industries we’ve lost. I would like to hear more about the industries we have gained.

    Take an example I saw recently. A textile factory that has become the most modern in the world; a firm taking on and beating Far Eastern competitors is exporting two million garments every week, and is about to double its workforce: a factory in Northern Ireland.

    How had they succeeded? They had seized the European market, attracted investment and made it a success.

    That Northern Irish factory is emblematic. Investors like our welcome. They like our tax structure. They like our industrial relations. They know that our workforce is flexible and adaptable. And we have English, – English, the world language. We should do well with such strengths. But outside the Community? Doing our own tiny thing, splendidly adrift? It’s just not on. Outside Europe Britain can survive; inside we will thrive.

    Britain’s achievements

    We take from the Community. And we put into it. Europe needs Britain just as Britain needs Europe. We have just completed the biggest free trade area in the world. A British initiative, started by a British Prime Minister, driven by a British Commissioner, and brought to fruition under a British Prime Minister. A single market that makes full use of the Treaty of Rome as a charter for economic liberty. A single market that helps us capitalise on the things Britain does uniquely well – our financial services, our transport and aviation and our telecommunications companies.

    Europe is only one part of the world trading system. The prize, if we can successfully complete the GATT round is huge: 200 billion dollars of extra prosperity for our globe. The risks, if we fail, are equally immense. Our influence, together with our Northern partners, tilts the Community onto the side of success. Thirty years ago the economist, James Meade wrote a famous pamphlet. An outward-looking Europe was good, he said, an inward-looking Europe should make us flee to the hills. We are fighting and winning the battles he identified. Historically some of our partners are protectionist by instinct. But Britain with her outside links, American and Commonwealth, will always thrust Europe outwards.

    We have also led the way to bringing in our old EFTA partners and friends Austria, Norway, Sweden and Finland. They share our instincts as global free traders. Many of the traditions on which our Parliamentary democracy is based come from the Scandinavian part of our heritage. A rugged, independent-minded legislature can sometimes be uncomfortable. Believe me, it can. But it is a good and healthy thing. They share that with us.

    Like us, too, they will be net contributors. They will be watchful how the Community spends its citizens’ money.

    Only a cloud-borne idealist would deny the debits to our membership. We joined late. We didn’t make the rules. A lot of them didn’t suit us.

    There is a legend of ancient Rome to illustrate the British predicament. It tells how the Sibyl offered the Roman Senate 9 books containing the future of the republic. Shocked at the price, the senators refused to buy them. The Sibyl burned 3 books. She then offered the other 6 for the same price. The Senate still refused. She burned 3 more. Seriously rattled, the Senate hastily agreed to buy the last 3 books for the price of the original 9.

    Ted, you bought the books. We have read them; and thank goodness you did buy them.

    But of course, we keep bringing out new editions. That is what happens to successful books. We have reformed the Common Agricultural Policy after years of squabbling. At Edinburgh we put a ceiling on EC spending until the end of the Century. At Edinburgh too we reached out to the new member nations. The Scandinavians now; and in time the Central European nations – Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. We won agreement against all the odds that those old friends would join. Not tentatively or in the future conditional tense, but “join” meaning “join”. That was always Britain’s wish; and it will be fulfilled.

    Like Douglas Hurd, I know that the Community has become too intrusive in our national life. Where this is so we must correct it and the Maastricht Treaty provides a way of doing so. But some intrusion is necessary and is in our interests. For example, if we are to make the Single Market work, there has to be some body of common law. It is we, British, who have pressed hardest for a true common market – a slogan made flesh. If we are to have that, it needs to be enforced and someone must have the authority to do so. The Commission and the Court have that authority. For all its quirks and quiddities, when the Commission battles against vested interests and for competition, it is on our side.

    Maastricht

    Of course, there is too much regulation both in Brussels and Whitehall; and indeed too much done at Community level better done by individual nations. Maastricht is the focus of that concern.

    But let me tell you a story. A colleague at a constituency dinner asked everyone present to tell him what they didn’t like about Maastricht.

    Up went a jungle of hands. “Nobody else got a point? Everyone had their say?”

    “Yes”.

    “Well” he said “you have raised 35 different points against Maastricht. 33 of them date back to the Treaty of Rome or the Single European Act. And 2 of them are valid complaints against the Treaty of Maastricht.”

    Maastricht has been used as the scapegoat for the varied and nameless fears about Europe, most of them wholly unrelated to the Treaty.

    I have never pretended that Maastricht is perfect, but, warts and all, Maastricht makes Europe better.

    Take “subsidiarity”, which I call “national precedence”. Subsidiarity enshrines in EC Law the principle that the Community should not be permitted to do what Member States can do better themselves.

    But there are areas – many areas where the Community countries do need to work together. The member states of the EC face an ocean of problems beyond the capacity of any of us to solve alone: migration; environmental degradation; nuclear proliferation; international crime and especially drugs; political instability to our East; terrorism; and protectionism. I do not see our Nation as a cog in some centralised superstate. Maastricht does not solve all problems but it draws all of us together for the shared, common sense purpose of trying to solve them.

    Of course, the Brussels centralisers haven’t all gone away. But they are now running against the tide. A tide that will flow ever more strongly in the enlarged Community we ensured at Edinburgh. The idea of a centralised Europe had resonance in a Community of the 6. But for 12, soon 16 and eventually 20 plus nations it is a grandiose doodle. It is not what the people of Europe want. We Conservatives, must have the confidence and the sharp-edged determination to stay in the heart of the European debate to win a Community of free, independent members. The nations must be free-standing – a colonnade, not a set of bars.

    To opt out of that struggle would deny 20 years of British effort and achievement. How does the Community work? Europe is a small sea of perpetual negotiation. It shapes its future and its laws by alliances between governments and ministers. Many who fear and oppose Europe are like the fat boy in “Pickwick”. They want to make your flesh creep. They think we are always going to lose the argument in Europe. That is defeatist and wrong. We learnt to swim in that sea long ago.

    The Single Market was a British idea; breaking open state monopolies was a British idea. CAP reform and enlargement have been British goals. If we tried to huddle back into some private yesterday we wouldn’t have any alliances we could make. Others would make the rules. And they’d impose the rules on us. That’s what our EFTA partners have learned. It’s one reason why they are queuing to join.

    I know there are those who have many objections to the Community. But I notice they offer no satisfactory alternative. What are the theoretical options? There are three:

    – to leave altogether. Put that bluntly, they shrink away from that choice;

    – to form some kind of association with an American free trade area. That is a sugar coated turnip and the economic hole that leaving Europe would open up cannot be filled with turnips;

    – third, to stick at “a Common market and no more”. That’s such a narrow, unexalted vision. Britain has long argued for a more coherent foreign policy for the Twelve. Because it makes sense for us to work together as we did in providing safe havens for the Kurds of Northern Iraq.

    So what really moves the opponents of Britain’s full participation in the EC? As much as anything it is frustration. Frustration that we are no longer a world power. Frustration that nowhere is the nation state fully sovereign, free to conduct its policies without concerting with ruddy foreigners. There is frustration that some of the fixed and treasured aspects of our national life are subject to seemingly relentless change. They practice a sort of phantom grandeur, a clanking of unusable suits of armour.

    I understand these feelings but I cannot share them. The world has moved on. Britain has to take its rightful place in it. Though no longer a global power we still have global interests and we need to defend them with determination but also with subtlety. We cannot afford to subject ourselves to the despotism of nostalgia. We need to use cleverness and shared strength. We must operate a network of little threads to make most use of the influence we do have. And the European Community is a handful of threads for the pursuit of our domestic and foreign interests.

    We hear a lot about principled opposition to Europe. Let’s not forget that there is a great deal of principled support too. Looking around, I see a great many who have been principled supporters of our place in Europe for as long as I can remember.

    The sly argument that to be a principled supporter of Europe is somehow to put Britain’s interests second needs dismissing for the nonsense it is. It’s precisely because we put Britain’s interests first that we need to be in there shaping the new Europe. A new Europe that is larger, more open and less intrusive. That’s not throwing away history, that’s not knocking down traditions. We are digging straight ditches and putting layers of bricks into them – what builders call a foundation.

    A wider Europe

    Those who say Europe is only an economic entity, a tower of brass, forget one small gift to our age: two generations of peace.

    The peace we have had in the West was not reached by the turn of a card. The ancient hatreds were composed and the ancient enemies conciliated with fearful singularity of purpose.

    Let’s not forget, that when we joined the Community, Spain Portugal and Greece were still governed by men in sunglasses and epaulettes. The dictators were booted out. Stability and democracy have been locked in – by membership of the Community.

    The tragedy in Bosnia on our borders is a terrible reminder of the loss of that blessing we here take too much for granted. It is an irony that many who protest most loudly that ‘Britain only joined a common market’ are the first to complain that the EC has not secured a political or military settlement to the conflict in Bosnia.

    Our long term purpose must be the whole continent of Europe with free democracies and without trade barriers. We are backing freer trade with more aid. A great swelling tide of humanitarian and technical aid flows to Russia and central Europe. The EC is by far the largest donor. £5 billion worth over the last three years. £5 billion to support democracy, and free market reform. Of course, we want it wisely spent. And who bangs on the most to insist upon that? Britain does.

    And it isn’t all governments, the big battalions who are helping. It is the small platoons too – volunteers and private benefactors, like those I was able to thank at Number 10 recently for their work in setting up the 1990s equivalent of Rhodes scholarships for young people from central and Eastern Europe.

    That is the best of Britain and it is part of our distinctive and unique contribution to Europe. Distinctive and unique as Britain will remain in Europe. Fifty years from now Britain will still be the country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers and – as George Orwell said – “old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist” and if we get our way – Shakespeare still read even in school. Britain will survive unamendable in all essentials.

    Surely we trust our own integrity as a people quite enough to fear nothing in Europe. We are the British, a people freely living inside a Europe which is glad to see us and wants us. After 20 years we have come of age in Europe. One Conservative leader put us there. This Conservative leader means us to thrive there. So let’s get on with it.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy (II) – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 22nd April 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the recession was over and the recovery started].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The economic indicators are looking a lot brighter. We’ve had a whole range of figures that were rather better than many forecasters imagined. I am very pleased to see that but I think we must wait until we see GDP figures in due course.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if this was just a modest rebound after a large recession].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well it is a pretty remarkable “modest rebound” as you put it, when you see almost every indicator moving in the same direction and doing so quite sharply. Normally, when one emerges from a recession it tends to be rather more jagged and rather more uncertain so I think the trend is undoubtedly in the right direction.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if unemployment falling was just a one off].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will have to wait and see, won’t we? It is certainly very welcome to see for the last two months that unemployment has fallen and of course three months ago, if you remember, the unemployment rise was actually rather small so it is three months where the unemployment figures have been better than people imagined.

    The level of unemployment is still far too high and we need to get it down. That is why we said some time ago that need a base of low inflation from which we can have an expanding, growing economy. That is the only way to have secure jobs.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the high PSBR].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wonder what you or most other people would have said to me if I had actually cut public expenditure in the midst of the recession? I think many people would have thought that would have been a rather strange way to deal with it.

    A large part of the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement is cyclical. It is a collapse of income during the recession: no house sales – no stamp duty; no high street sales – far less value added tax; fewer people in work – a loss of income tax. As that begins to correct itself, a large part of the deficit will itself disappear. There will be more. We shall need some growth. We shall need to look very carefully at public expenditure.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy (I) – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy, made during an interview held in London on Thursday 22nd April 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the recession was over].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a great deal more confidence among business, I think it is they who by their performance will show whether the recovery is with us. There is no doubt they are very confident indeed now and many of the indicators over recent weeks have been very positive, so that is very satisfactory.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he wasn’t prepared to say that the recession was over].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When the recession is over everyone will see that self-evidently. What I think one can see is happening, there is a much greater degree of confidence, exports are rising, one has seen with car sales and a whole range of other indicators that they are getting a good deal better. I want to see those indicators go on getting better, that has been happening in recent weeks, it is very welcome news.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how people knew that the recovery wouldn’t lead to Lawson type boom].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is exactly the right question that people should have in their minds and exactly the right concern that I have in my mind. We said two years ago that there was no short cut out of the difficulties we faced. I said that it would be a difficult period, we had to get inflation down, when we had got inflation down – and I knew it would be difficult, knew it would be unpopular – then we would begin to see recovery.

    We have got inflation down, we are beginning now to see the recovery, I think that is self-evident from what businesses themselves are saying. I have not lost my concern about inflation, I had it two years ago, I have it now, I want to make sure this is a long term sustainable recovery, not a short term boom.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the recovery was a candy-floss recovery with no recovery in manufacturing].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There has been a great degree of retraining but let us look at more substantive matters of what is actually happening. You refer to a candy-floss economy. The reality is the fact that our exports, a key element in continuing economic recovery, are now penetrating very deeply into both European and markets way beyond Europe. That export growth is at record levels, it is continuing, and that shows several things, that British firms are manufacturing, that they are competitive, that they are prepared to look for markets abroad and that they are successfully doing so. All that is very welcome. The unemployment drop is very welcome, I am delighted about that, most for the unemployed who have found jobs and for their families, but the level is still too high, we need to see a much wider manufacturing base, I shall be talking about that in the next few days and I wish to see that we have the right circumstances to engender confidence so that business can produce the growth we need. Governments cannot do it, they can set the framework, then business can do it, that is what we are seeking to do.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Lichfield

    Q8. Mr. Fabricant : To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to pay an official visit to Lichfield and its cathedral.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Staffordshire among them.

     

    Mr. Stephen Kock

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister what the official duties of Mr. Stephen Adolphus Kock have been since 1990.

    The Prime Minister : None.

     

    Incomes Policy

    Mr. Redmond : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce an incomes policy.

    The Prime Minister : The Government have no such plans.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

    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.

     

    Serbia (Sanctions)

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister to what extent the new sanctions against Serbia Montenegro prevent or limit British nationals, or public relations consultancies based in the United Kingdom, from promoting or representing in the United Kingdom the interests of (a) the Government of Yugoslavia, (b) the Government of Montenegro, (c) the Government of Serbia and (d) the Bosnian Serb leadership.

    The Prime Minister : United Nations Security Council resolution 820 of 17 April 1993 prevents British nationals or public relations consultancies based in the United Kingdom from promoting or representing in the United Kingdom the interests of the Governments of Serbia and Montenegro.

     

    Western Goals Institute

    Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister which Downing street policy advisers have spoken at meetings of the Western Goals Institute (a) from 1979 to 1990 and (b) since 1990; and what meetings Government Ministers have had with officers of the Western Goals Institute since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : The activities of the Western Goals Institute are wholly incompatible with the policies of the Government and the Conservative party. I am not aware of any contacts between Government Ministers or officials and the Western Goals Institute.

     

    South African Conservative Party

    Mr. Hain : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions Ministers have had with representatives of the South African Conservative party since 1979.

    The Prime Minister : My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited South Africa in September 1992 as leader of the EC troika. He met leaders of all major groups including the Conservative party. The Government have kept in contact with all the main parties in South Africa in the context of encouraging progress towards a democratic, non-racial constitution.

     

    Bosnia

    Mr. Flynn : To ask the Prime Minister what is his current assessment of the results of the London accord on Bosnia of last summer ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The statement on Bosnia resulting from the London conference on the former Yugoslavia in August 1992 set out a number of provisions to be included in a peace settlement and called upon the parties to resume negotiations. The international conference on the former Yugoslavia, under the co-chairmanship of Lord Owen and Mr. Vance, has since worked tirelessly to establish a peace plan building on these principles. The Bosnian Muslims and Croats have signed all the elements of the peace plan. But the Bosnian Serbs continue to refuse to agree the interim government arrangements and the maps. The United Nations Security Council has now adopted a further resolution setting out extremely tough sanctions which will be imposed on the Serbs if they remain intransigent.

     

    Dixon-Bate Ltd.

    Mr. Barry Jones : To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit the company headquarters of B. Dixon-Bate Ltd.

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

     

    Mr. Ghazanfer Ali

    Mr. Madden : To ask the Prime Minister what further information he has received about court proceedings in Pakistan concerning Mr. Ghazanfer Ali.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 21 April 1993] : The two murder charges facing Mr. Ghazanfer Ali were heard on 13 and 14 March and adjourned until 8 and 12 April. We have been informed that they have been further adjourned until 27 April and 10 May.

  • PMQT – 22 April 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 22nd April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Clifton-Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

    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. Clifton-Brown : Will my right hon. Friend welcome today’s unemployment figures, down for the second month running and coming on top of an increase of 1 per cent. in manufacturing output and 2 per cent. in the retail sales figures–proof that the economy is growing in confidence? Does he agree that it is about time Opposition Members stopped prophesying gloom and doom about the economy?

    The Prime Minister : This is only the second successive month, but today’s fall in unemployment will be seen as very good news by everyone, especially the families of people now back in work. Especially welcome is the fact that the number of unemployed people has fallen in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and in each and every region in England. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are signs of growing business and consumer confidence. I hope that in the future that will bring further good news on jobs, which everyone who wishes this country well will surely welcome.

    Mr. John Smith : While welcoming the fall– [Hon. Members :– “Hear, hear.”]–in the official unemployment total announced today, is it not the case that a total of over 2,900,000 is still far too high and should never have been allowed to reach anything like that level? If the Prime Minister seeks to take credit for a fall of 26,000 in the official figures, is he equally prepared to accept responsibility for the million people who have lost their jobs since he became Prime Minister, the vast majority of whom are still unemployed?

    The Prime Minister : Grudging might be an appropriate word for that welcome, but I at least welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has this month, unlike last month, welcomed the fall in unemployment. Perhaps he might mention to the shadow Chancellor–who said even yesterday that unemployment would go on rising–that he should look more carefully in future.

    If the right hon. and learned Gentleman shares with me a wish to produce permanent, long-term jobs in a growing economy, perhaps he will also join me in the right policies to achieve that, including welcoming limits on public sector pay, welcoming caps on council spending, welcoming our trade union reforms, dropping his equivocation over strikes and welcoming our reforms to improve education. If he really cares about future long-term employment, will he welcome those? Yes or no?

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister appreciate–[Hon. Members– : “Answer.”]–that unemployment at this continuing high level is in large part a reflection of the underlying weakness of an economy bedevilled by persistent under-investment in manufacturing and skills and menaced by a dangerously high balance of payments deficit? if the Government’s economic policies are satisfactory, why are we suffering a multi-billion pound deficit in our balance of payments at a time of recession? What does the Prime Minister propose to do about that?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should lift his eyes. I know that he has to encourage his Back Benchers, but he should know that across Europe, 17 million people are unemployed and it is becoming increasingly apparent to everyone except the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that is the result of the international economy over many years. There are also 3 million unemployed in France. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants the answer to the question he should look at what is now happening in the economy. Car production figures last month were the highest for 19 years, a survey by the British chambers of commerce shows that business confidence is up, there has been the biggest growth in manufacturing exports for three years, surveys by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors all show good news. In addition, there are extra jobs at Toyota in Derbyshire, Ford in Dunton and Kimberly-Clark in Humberside. Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman welcome what everyone else but him can see?

    Mr. John Smith : Why does the Prime Minister not answer the question that I asked him? Why was it predicted in the Budget that the balance of payments would deteriorate from £12 billion to £17.5 billion? Is there any other country in the European Community with such a miserable prospect?

    The Prime Minister : The European Community as a whole has a deficit, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly does not know. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is yet again changing horses. Every month he used to ask me about inflation, until it fell when he stopped talking about it. He then started talking about unemployment until it began to level off and fall. Now he has changed horses again. I have bad news for the right hon. and learned Gentleman : he is going to run out of things to whinge about.

     

    Q2. Mr. Pickles : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

    Mr. Pickles : In replying to the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend referred to the report of the British chambers of commerce. Did he see in that report that business confidence and business activity are both at high levels? Did he also note that the amount of export orders is at an all-time high? Given that trade union leaders, commentators and even economists now see an improvement– [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Opposition do not like improvements. Does my right hon. Friend, like me, look forward to the time when all hon. Members will welcome good economic news and talk Britain up rather than whinge?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend, of course, is right. Any good news for the economy is bad news for the Labour party. There has been a range of encouraging economic news, but we wish to see far more–to that extent, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition. There has been a range of encouraging economic information- -retail sales are up, exports are up, manufacturing output is up, car production is up, house sales are up and business confidence is up. That is leading to a position whereby Britain will be on the up.

    Mrs. Roche : Given the appalling record of Group 4 prison escort services, will the Prime Minister urge his right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is the chairman of the Tory party, to resign from another Group 4 company?

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Q3. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

    Mrs. Gillan : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the overwhelming vote in Italy against proportional representation– [Interruption.] Does it not reinforce my right hon. Friend’s view that the first-past-the-post system is the best one, and delivers decisive, democratic and honest government? Will he join me, 32 million Italians and the deputy Leader of the Opposition in recommending the first-past-the-post system to the Leader of the Opposition and the Front-Bench team?

    The Prime Minister : This is, of course, a divisive issue, which divides, not least, the Labour party as to whether it is in favour of proportional representation. I have never made any secret of my views on proportional representation. It is one of the few matters on which I share the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. While others have tried to dance on the head of a pin during the election, the Conservative party campaigned four- square for the existing system. It has brought us over many decades stable and secure government. I hope that it will do the same for the Italians. The Italians are right to scrap the backstairs deals that inevitably come with PR.

    Mr. Salmond : Talking of back stairs, does the Prime Minister believe–

    [Hon. Members] : Back stairs

    Madam Speaker : Order. All these interruptions are very time- consuming.

    Mr. Salmond : Does the Prime Minister believe that the provisions of the social chapter are popular or unpopular with the general public? Does he intend to include in his European speech this evening a passage expressing thanks to the leader of the Labour party for saving his political bacon in the referendum vote in the early hours of this morning?

    The Prime Minister : I know that the hon. Gentleman will, as he always does, read my speech with great care.

    Mr. Hood : Send him a letter.

    The Prime Minister : I will not promise to send the hon. Gentleman a letter on this matter but, at the risk of leaking my own speech, he may not find the sentence that he seeks in it this evening.

     

    Q4. Mr. Ward : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 April.

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

    Mr. Ward : Will my right hon. Friend speed up the efforts being made to prevent British industry and commerce being stifled by over-regulation? Is he aware that there is still much evidence that officials are being over-zealous in the interpretations of health, safety and fire regulations, with the resulting damage to British commerce and industry?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right that unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy–I emphasise the word unnecessary– stifle industry and enterprise. I also agree with him that we have to beware of over-implementation of regulations whether from Whitehall, Brussels, county hall or town hall. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my other right hon. Friends are all examining regulations to see what might satisfactorily be diluted or scrapped. This will be a continuing programme and I hope that we shall be able to bring measures before the House before too long.

    Mr. Hood : Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to restate his confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Would he like to describe his position as unsellable?

    The Prime Minister : I know that I am keen on exports, but there is a limit.

     

    Thurlestone Hotel, South Devon

    Q5. Mr. Steen : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to the Thurlestone hotel in South Devon.

    The Prime Minister : Although I have no current plans to do so, I will certainly bear the possibility in mind for my next visit to the west country. I understand, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage met the proprietor, Mr. David Grose, when he visited the area last Friday. I gather that the hotel has been in the same family since the 1890s and even in difficult times has been expanding its business.

    Mr. Steen : When my right hon. Friend does come to the hotel, I think that he will be fascinated to take a look at the decor, because every room in the hotel is covered in a plethora of red tape. I suggest that the Prime Minister should get hold of the new officials who are zealously interpreting the rules and regulations and make sure that they do not destroy hotels and small businesses. In particular, he should have regard for the undercover operations of the hygiene police.

    Will my right hon. Friend, in his deregulation initiative, make sure that he gets rid of a number of public officials and puts a moratorium on the implementation of rules and regulations–and lifts the burden of such rules and regulations off the backs of the hoteliers?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is well known as a champion both of the south-west and of deregulation. I know how important both are to him and I will take careful note of what he has to say. We certainly wish to cut as much red tape as possible.

    Mr. Hume : When the Prime Minister visits this hotel in Devon, will he give consideration to the fact that this generation of human beings is living through the greatest economic revolution in the history of the world –a technological, telecommunications and transport revolution? Will he bear in mind that it means that the wealth of society is being created by far fewer people and that that in turn has great implications for the role of the state in the social and economic welfare of people? The Government should therefore be paying far greater attention to the role of the state in that capacity, instead of heading in the direction in which they are going : privatisation, survival of the fittest and, ultimately, the law of the jungle.

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right about the fact that this is likely to be one of the most rapidly changing decades in peacetime in the lifetime of even the most venerable Members in the House.

    Technological change is inevitable and should be welcomed. It brings with it great benefits. I know that many people always fear that any technological change will have an adverse effect on jobs. I am sure that that argument was advanced when the wheel and a whole series of other inventions were thought up. We must live with technological change ; we must advance it ; we must make the most of it ; and we must lead it.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 21 April 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 21st April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Iran and Iraq (Weapons)

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister what was the policy of Her Majesty’s Government towards export of lethal weapons for Iran and Iraq from 1979 to 1985; and if he will list each occasion on which changes in the policy were announced to the House.

    The Prime Minister : Restrictions on the export of lethal weapons to Iran were introduced following the seizure of the American hostages in 1979. Restrictions were introduced on Iraq following the outbreak of the Iran/Iraq conflict in 1980. Guidelines applying to all deliveries of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq were introduced in December 1984. They were announced to the House on 29 October 1985 by my noble and learned Friend, Lord Howe of Aberavon, then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The guidelines were as follows :

    (i) we should maintain our consistent refusal to supply any lethal equipment to either side;

    (ii) subject to that overriding consideration, we should attempt to fulfil existing contracts and obligations;

    (iii) we should not, in future, approve orders for any defence equipment which, in our view, would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict;

    (iv) in line with this policy, we should continue to scrutinise rigorously all applications for export licences for the supply of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq.

     

    Liverpool

    Mr. Parry : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Liverpool in the near future.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him yesterday at column 178.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 April 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th April 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Council of Ministers

    Mr. Barnes : To ask the Prime Minister what were the details of the last formal vote that was taken in a meeting of a Council of Ministers in the European Community; and if he will list the date of each subsequent meeting at which no formal votes were taken.

    The Prime Minister : The last formal vote in the Council of Ministers was that taken on the proposed arrangements for bananas in the single market during the Agriculture Council on 13 February. Details were given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on 3 March at column 192. No formal votes were taken at the following Councils : ECOFIN on 15 February, Consumer Affairs on 2 March, Foreign Affairs on 8 and 9 March, ECOFIN on 15 March, Transport on 15 March, Agriculture on 16 and 17 March, Fisheries on 18 March, Environment on 22 and 23 March, Foreign Affairs on 5 April, Employment and Social Affairs on 6 April, and ECOFIN on 19 April.

     

    49 Whitehall

    Mr. Rogers : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those Government Departments having offices at No. 49 Whitehall, London SW1.

    The Prime Minister : There is no Government occupation of 49 Whitehall. I assume that the hon. Member refers to 49/53 Parliament street, SW1 which is occupied by the Office of Public Service and Science–major occupier–the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security.

     

    Derbyshire

    Q10. Mr. Hendry : To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to pay an official visit to Derbyshire.

    The Prime Minister : I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Derbyshire among them.